The Potential 'stricter' Punishments

[nelsonRFC82 305]

Can you publicly state such punishments were considered but deemed too harsh and then later try and enforce them because you got your arse handed to you in court?

[boss 1,941]

Thank you for clearing that up. In any way at all, is it possible under Rule 66 breaches for the SFA to "prevent" Rangers from participating in Scottish football, pre-season or otherwise, for a temporary basis that does not include just the Scottish Cup?

Good question because I was just researching that myself.

Under the Judicial Panel Protocol:

15.6.1 The Appellate Tribunal shall have the power to:

1 Affirm the decision of the appealed tribunal;

2 Uphold the appeal by setting aside the Determination appealed against and quashing any sanction imposed;

3 Uphold the appeal in part by setting aside part only of the Determination appealed against;

4 Substitute for the Determination appealed against a Determination to find the Appellant to have breached an alternative Disciplinary Rule;

5 Order a lesser or an increased sanction to that imposed by the appealed tribunal;

6 Refer the case or any part of it back to the tribunal concerned, or to a freshly constituted tribunal;

7 Where it conducts a re-hearing, to re-Determine the Case afresh; and/or

8 Take any step which, in the exercise of its discretion, the Appellate Tribunal considers it would be appropriate to take in order to deal justly with the case in question.

Here's my comments on each:

1 Affirm the decision of the appealed tribunal; NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF TODAY'S RULING.

2 Uphold the appeal by setting aside the Determination appealed against and quashing any sanction imposed; NOT LIKELY AS THE SANCTION OF THE FINE WILL STAY.

3 Uphold the appeal in part by setting aside part only of the Determination appealed against; POSSIBLE - RETAIN THE FINE BUT BIN THE ILLEGAL REGISTRATION SANCTION.

4 Substitute for the Determination appealed against a Determination to find the Appellant to have breached an alternative Disciplinary Rule; NOT RELEVANT - IT WILL STAY AS A RULE 66 BREACH.

5 Order a lesser or an increased sanction to that imposed by the appealed tribunal; THE SANCTIONS ARE NOWHERE LISTED IN ORDER OF SERIOUSNESS. SO ONE INTERPRETATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS THAT IT IS ONLY RELEVANT FOR, SAY, LESSENING OR INCREASING A FINE (ALREADY AT THE MAXIMUM!), OR FOR LESSENING OR INCREASING A SUSPENSION ETC. IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO GIVE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THE POWER TO SUBSTITUTE, SAY, A SUSPENSION INSTEAD OF A REGISTRATION EMBARGO.

6 Refer the case or any part of it back to the tribunal concerned, or to a freshly constituted tribunal; POSSIBLE BUT GIVEN THE INEVITABLE DELAY, COST, UNCERTAINTY ETC IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE IN ANYONE'S INTERESTS AND COULD BE SEEN AS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SIMPLY CHICKENING OUT.

7 Where it conducts a re-hearing, to re-Determine the Case afresh; and/or NOT RELEVANT AS RANGERS DID NOT REQUEST A RE-HEARING.

8 Take any step which, in the exercise of its discretion, the Appellate Tribunal considers it would be appropriate to take in order to deal justly with the case in question. A LEGAL MINEFIELD. ON THE FACE OF IT THIS PARAGRAPH SEEMS TO ALLOW THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO SUBSTITUTE ONE OF THE OTHER PRESCRIBED SANCTIONS (WHICH ARE: SUSPENSION, EXPULSION, EJECTION FROM SCOTTISH CUP, TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP). THE ORIGINAL TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP AND SUSPENSION (AND PRESUMABLY THEREFORE ALSO EXPULSION) WERE PUNISHMENTS "TOO SEVERE". IF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TRIED TO IMPOSE ANY OF THESE, THEY WOULD NEED TO BE SATISFIED THAT THESE WERE "JUST" WHEN THE TRIBUNAL THAT ACTUALLY HEARD ALL THE EVIDENCE DECIDED THEY WERE "TOO SEVERE". ANOTHER VISIT TO THE COURT OF SESSION WOULD BECKON! THAT WOULD ONLY LEAVE EJECTION FROM THE SCOTTISH CUP (WHO CARES? AND THE SFA WOULD BE SHOOTING THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT!). INDEED ANOTHER INTERPRETATION OF THIS PARAGRAPH IS THAT IT IS PROCEDURAL IN INTENT IN ORDER TO GIVE THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL THE NECESSARY POWER MAKE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES, SAY IN GIVING FURTHER TIME TO PAY ETC. THIS INTERPRETATION MIGHT BE PERSUASIVE INSOFAR AS HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION TO ALLOW THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO SUBSTITUTE ONE SANCTION FOR ANOTHER YOU WOULD REASONABLY EXPECT SUCH AN IMPORTANT POWER TO STATED EXPRESSLY!

[evenstevens 890]

Good work Boss.

I suspect ejection from Scottish Cup, with a thinly veiled PR vomiting "strong" statement about the seriousness of such a sanction will be our punishment.

Only face saving way out for all concerned.

[RICHY1775 32]

there is an interesting line in the cva that allows green to walk away if we are not in all competitions, very unlikely he would exercise it if the transfer ban was lifted though....

I'm wondering if Green was of the opinion that the transfer embargo was a bad thing, as he wasn't putting much of a song and dance about it.

I mean, it was that important to him that it was our money from the fighting fund that paid to fight the corner in court.

A transfer embargo introduced a perfect solution for him not splashing the cash.

Now, he's got no excuse.

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

I'm wondering if Green was of the opinion that the transfer embargo was a bad thing, as he wasn't putting much of a song and dance about it.

I mean, it was that important to him that it was our money from the fighting fund that paid to fight the corner in court.

A transfer embargo introduced a perfect solution for him not splashing the cash.

Now, he's got no excuse.

Possibly correct...although he doesn't own the club why would he pay for a lawyer for us.

It may have suited him though.....

[BlueThunder 8,453]

A transfer embargo introduced a perfect solution for him not splashing the cash.

Now, he's got no excuse.

I don't think he has any intention of 'splashing the cash'. He will sell on some players to reduce wages then buy if incoming fees exceed outgoing fees and wages are minimal IMO

[ronniemca 479]

Does anybody here think that expulsion from the Scottish Cup next season is a stricter punishment than the transfer embargo? The only reason they wouldn't do it is because of sponsors and TV money, I suspect we can cope easily.

Suspension or termination of membership of the SFA are clearly non-starters anyway.

i sincerely hope they terminate our membership,then we can apply for membership of the FA, and get out of this shithole.leave the bastards to rot