Jump to content

Club responds to tribunal


theiconicman
 Share

Recommended Posts

AN SFA independent appeals panel has this evening upheld a decision to impose a 12-month transfer embargo on the club.

Duff and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement tonight.

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "The decision by the appellate tribunal to uphold the sanction, namely the suspension of registration of players for one year, is not competent in the view of the club and its legal advisers.

"Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination.

"The club will consider seeking review of this most disappointing decision and it is a matter of regret that the certainty and finality Rangers sought on this matter has not been achieved.

"Everyone at Rangers is bitterly disappointed and dismayed at this outcome."

Charles Green, who leads a consortium purchasing Rangers, said: "Our group went into the purchase of the club with this sanction in place but we hoped the decision would at least be commuted.

"We fully support the club as it considers an appeal against this latest decision."

Sandy Jardine, spokesman for the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, added: "Rangers supporters will be shocked and bitterly disappointed by this decision and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am extremely encouraged by one line in that Statement, and now I do think we are playing the big boys game at last.

What line, that such a sanction was not available to them to impose?

Surely that would be easy to prove in a court of law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was released, and posted, last night, mate. Clark is also wrong about the sanction not being available. The panel have unlimited powers, unless a charge has a maximum punishment stipulated in the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

'such a sanction was not available to the tibunal'

This needs to be challenged as their obviously just making it up as they go along and trying to make up new ways of trying to fuck us over. I really hope this gets taken all the way and shows these incompetent cunts up for what they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What line, that such a sanction was not available to them to impose?

Surely that would be easy to prove in a court of law.

Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination.

That is a clear legal challenge; and aside from boycotts and so on we have to fight the legalities of this. It is now time to put the SFA rules to the test in this fashion. I would think this is where our QC is now taking charge of that particular matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was released, and posted, last night, mate. Clark is also wrong about the sanction not being available. The panel have unlimited powers, unless a charge has a maximum punishment stipulated in the rules.

That statement from Clark would have been made under legal guidance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination.

That is a clear legal challenge; and aside from boycotts and so on we have to fight the legalities of this. It is now time to put the SFA rules to the test in this fashion. I would think this is where our QC is now taking charge of that particular matter.

Yip it stood out to me too and as said, I think this could easily be proven in a court of law.

I dare say QC Keen couldn't really have any bearing in that hearing last night HOWEVER we are now approaching his home turf and NOW I'd expect to see him earn his fee (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yip it stood out to me too and as said, I think this could easily be proven in a court of law.

I dare say QC Keen couldn't really have any bearing in that hearing last night HOWEVER we are now approaching his home turf and NOW I'd expect to see him earn his fee (tu)

He is not going to have any bearing anyway; he will look at the law in this matter and act according to the interests of his client. It is up to the SFA to prove their rules are applicable to Rangers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could maybe argue that it's illegal to have such a clause where any punishment can be given and also such a crime which can be judged so subjectively. As it stands, however, there is such a clause and there is such a crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could maybe argue that it's illegal to have such a clause where any punishment can be given and also such a crime which can be judged so subjectively. As it stands, however, there is such a clause and there is such a crime.

Rangers won't be arguing any such thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This must easily be turned over in a proper court. I still suspect we will be signing players next season. Just depends how long the process takes.

I don't know if that is what we will do or not; but it is possible we didn't hire the services of The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates merely to attend a SFA Tribunal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if that is what we will do or not; but it is possible we didn't hire the services of The Dean of the Faculty of Advocates merely to attend a SFA Tribunal.

Yeah, the bit in bold is why have this trail of thought. Plus the admins statement, as I read it, is a legal challange and is being taken further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was released, and posted, last night, mate. Clark is also wrong about the sanction not being available. The panel have unlimited powers, unless a charge has a maximum punishment stipulated in the rules.

Blinkers off time, lads. Has anyone here actually looked up the rules, and the punishments due under Section 94.1?

Go on, look it up, then come back and tell me what the maximum punishment is. The Rules are directly linked to from the SFA website page that contains the original ruling.

Personally, and no ill-will against you bears, I think you should take the transfer embargo and run. You got off pretty lightly. At least until the dual contracts case comes up, and then the BTC.

The transfer embargo is actually proportionate, if you think about it. Rangers have had an unfair advantage by registering players they either couldn't afford, or didn't pay tax and NI for (the latter beyond any doubt). So attempting to redress the balance by stopping new registrations for a while is reasonably fair. The Rules allow for discretion in handing out punishments.

And as I say, given that Rangers were hit with the maximum fine, then the maximum sanction could also have easily been applied because it's mentioned in the same sentence - and not as an option, either. If Rangers have any sense, they'll accept the lighter sanction and try to fade into the background a bit for a while. Further appeals will leave no punishment option open but termination of membership.

Good luck - you're really going to need it. How long until Mr Green does walking away?

I do not support Celtic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rangers won't be arguing any such thing.

The rules state that there is a crime called bringing the game into disrepute for which we have been found guilty. One of the clauses for this crime is that the panel can make up any penalty they see fit.

They can't argue that this isn't in the rules because it is. They can argue that it shouldn't be allowed to be in the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go on, look it up, then come back and tell me what the maximum punishment is. The Rules are directly linked to from the SFA website page that contains the original ruling.

They know that they can't do that so they hamstring us instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blinkers off time, lads. Has anyone here actually looked up the rules, and the punishments due under Section 94.1?

Go on, look it up, then come back and tell me what the maximum punishment is. The Rules are directly linked to from the SFA website page that contains the original ruling.

Personally, and no ill-will against you bears, I think you should take the transfer embargo and run. You got off pretty lightly. At least until the dual contracts case comes up, and then the BTC.

The transfer embargo is actually proportionate, if you think about it. Rangers have had an unfair advantage by registering players they either couldn't afford, or didn't pay tax and NI for (the latter beyond any doubt). So attempting to redress the balance by stopping new registrations for a while is reasonably fair. The Rules allow for discretion in handing out punishments.

And as I say, given that Rangers were hit with the maximum fine, then the maximum sanction could also have easily been applied because it's mentioned in the same sentence - and not as an option, either. If Rangers have any sense, they'll accept the lighter sanction and try to fade into the background a bit for a while. Further appeals will leave no punishment option open but termination of membership.

Good luck - you're really going to need it. How long until Mr Green does walking away?

I do not support Celtic.

Clearly another Rangers hater then.... it's pretty sad these people who live and breath to hate us or speak about our club more than they focus on their own just because they need to follow the usual we must dislike Rangers blah blah blah, here is a wee note to self we could not give a monkeys about your club or any other club in this world except Rangers.

You love to hate us but we do not care about you! Chump.

No surrender and Follow Follow!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blinkers off time, lads. Has anyone here actually looked up the rules, and the punishments due under Section 94.1?

Go on, look it up, then come back and tell me what the maximum punishment is. The Rules are directly linked to from the SFA website page that contains the original ruling.

Personally, and no ill-will against you bears, I think you should take the transfer embargo and run. You got off pretty lightly. At least until the dual contracts case comes up, and then the BTC.

The transfer embargo is actually proportionate, if you think about it. Rangers have had an unfair advantage by registering players they either couldn't afford, or didn't pay tax and NI for (the latter beyond any doubt). So attempting to redress the balance by stopping new registrations for a while is reasonably fair. The Rules allow for discretion in handing out punishments.

And as I say, given that Rangers were hit with the maximum fine, then the maximum sanction could also have easily been applied because it's mentioned in the same sentence - and not as an option, either. If Rangers have any sense, they'll accept the lighter sanction and try to fade into the background a bit for a while. Further appeals will leave no punishment option open but termination of membership.

Good luck - you're really going to need it. How long until Mr Green does walking away?

I do not support Celtic.

He sure showed us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly another Rangers hater then.... it's pretty sad these people who live and breath to hate us

Sorry - bollocks, mate.

You lads should get it out of your head that anyone who has an objective view of this whole situation hates Rangers. We don't. We sympathise with you supporters.

However, sooner or later you're going to have to realise that Rangers did bad stuff and are partway through the process of being punished for it. The punishment so far hasn't been nearly as bad as it could have been.

Kicking out against that punishment, simply because you're Rangers, isn't going to help you. The legal situation is watertight - that's why the Appeal lasted only a couple of hours.

Not a Rangers hater!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never think about joining another team’s forum... Why?

And a wee note I think us bears no what we have done in the past and yes we need to be punished but the treatment from the SFA and other teams that have put the boot into us is a disgrace.

We will see who is laughing when you are not getting the close to 1 million pounds from Rangers alone coming to your stadium and see how quick that bank manager is on the phone, you might no care the fans might not care but ask your chairman I bet he fucking does.

You do not realise how much you need something until it has gone, watch this space!

We are Rangers... Who are you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    • 29 January 2022 12:30 Until 14:30
      0  
      Ross County v Rangers
      Global Energy Stadium
      Scottish Premiership
      Live on Sky Sports Football and Sky Sports Main Event
×
×
  • Create New...