Prince of Orange 84 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into?There's nothing to stop hom being employed by Rangers, so where does employment law fit in? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossRFC1 40 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Rangers can be their employer, no problem. They just cant kick a ball in a non-friendly match. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 By that logic isn't the closing of the transfer window between September and January illegal also? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delamonty 992 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 On the surface, it does appear that the embargo is discriminatory at best. (Why 18?) And what would Brussels say about this? I hope we challenge this all the way. As D&P said.. these sanctions were not available to them originally.. They just made it up ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 isn't this what sion did? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 As D&P said.. these sanctions were not available to them originally.. They just made it up ... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gersandy 594 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into?We can 'employ' whoever we want, we just cant play him. As soon as the player steps over the white line, either in the league or cup, he must be registered with the sfa. This is what were banned from doing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Hablo Inglés 32 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The interesting point could be the free movement of trade as this is a very very broad article that literally outlaws ANYTHING that hampers trade between EU countries. Therefore, you could argue that the SFA is putting up a barrier to trade because although we can still sign players, it would make little sense to do so, therefore it is like an unreasonably high import tax or unreasonable tests that foreign goods would be subjected to. The only downfall though could be that because it is applied domestically also there is no discrimination. I study european law and it is never clear, provisions can be construed in ways that would never have been considered before or the judge could simply say "naw". Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gersandy 594 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 isn't this what sion did?Sion is different. In that their embargo didnt end in time for them to register the players they had bought. There was a bit of an argument as to when it ended and they could start buying. Thats what the court case was for, which they ultimately lost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delamonty 992 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 From the official sitePaul 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." Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersMedia 35,961 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 It would cost us hundreds of thousands to challenge this and I really doubt we will. European Law is a minefield. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangersMedia 35,961 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 From the official siteIt was available because put simply, any sanction is available to the tribunal panel. There isn't a codified list they can choose from. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Hablo Inglés 32 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 By that logic isn't the closing of the transfer window between September and January illegal also?I don't believe so because all teams have some sort of transfer window there is no discrimination or unfairness towards one or another and does not hamper the free movement as is shown by the evidence of clubs purchasing players outside transfer windows on a regular basis. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Hablo Inglés 32 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 From the official siteEdit: didn't quote properly. Basically discussing the fact that the tribunal could have chosen any sanction. This is against one of the most basic legal principles: that in order to punish someone, they should have been able to know exactly what the available punishment was at the time of the commission of the crime. If you are interested read about the "principle of legal certainty", which I also believe is relevant to our tax case as it was not even illegal at the time we used EBT's. Also, if we want to challenge this, then I think the European Court of Human Rights is where we would go Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 This is against one of the most basic legal principles: that in order to punish someone, they should have been able to know exactly what the available punishment was at the time of the commission of the crime.I think this is the only avenue really - to say that it is illegal to have a clause which allows arbitrary punishment. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I don't believe so because all teams have some sort of transfer window there is no discrimination or unfairness towards one or another and does not hamper the free movement as is shown by the evidence of clubs purchasing players outside transfer windows on a regular basis.The OP's point wasn't about the club though, it was about the player. The player is free to move to any other club apart from Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delamonty 992 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Edit: didn't quote properly. Basically discussing the fact that the tribunal could have chosen any sanction. This is against one of the most basic legal principles: that in order to punish someone, they should have been able to know exactly what the available punishment was at the time of the commission of the crime. If you are interested read about the "principle of legal certainty", which I also believe is relevant to our tax case as it was not even illegal at the time we used EBT's. Also, if we want to challenge this, then I think the European Court of Human Rights is where we would go Makes sense to me anyway. However, perhaps these tribunals do not follow 'principles of legal certainty'. The fellow that wrote the terrific blog (Chris....?) seemed to make the point that although the man in the street thinks that he is innocent until proven guilty... in these cases it is the opposite. So perhaps different rules apply.I have no idea.. certainly not my area of expertise.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I think this is the only avenue really - to say that it is illegal to have a clause which allows arbitrary punishment.Wouldn't that be difficult, considering the rules were approved by the clubs themselves? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ogbg 20 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Wouldn't that be difficult, considering the rules were approved by the clubs themselves?I was thinking the same, but I don't see any other possible avenue. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince of Orange 84 Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 We can 'employ' whoever we want, we just cant play him. As soon as the player steps over the white line, either in the league or cup, he must be registered with the sfa. This is what were banned from doing."As soon as the player steps over the white line, either in the league or cup, he must be registered with the sfa".This is exactly what is stopping him doing his job and could be construed as hampering employment.I understand this is a nightmare scenario and full of pitfalls but every avenue must at least be explored if not taken. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Hablo Inglés 32 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Makes sense to me anyway. However, perhaps these tribunals do not follow 'principles of legal certainty'. The fellow that wrote the terrific blog (Chris....?) seemed to make the point that although the man in the street thinks that he is innocent until proven guilty... in these cases it is the opposite. So perhaps different rules apply.I have no idea.. certainly not my area of expertise.. As I understand it, this cannot be ignored by any authority, so while for practical reasons guilt will sometimes be assumed (so violent criminals do not commit crime sprees before the trial gets through the very slow court system) , it is impossible to punish someone with something that was not available at the time of the crime. Even in the case of the Nuremberg trials, when this did happen, it sat very uneasily with many people and was only really accepted because of the absolute evil of what had happened. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Hablo Inglés 32 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 The OP's point wasn't about the club though, it was about the player. The player is free to move to any other club apart from Rangers.True, but as far as I am aware (and I am certainly not an expert so I am happy to be proven otherwise) the free movement of workers is much less open than the free movement of trade. As the workers are able to move and become employed by another club then within the free movement of workers provisions it is not a big enough barrier that they are unable to do the job for a few months. Trade, however, is much much more broad, and as I stated in another post, ANY barrier to free trade is likely to be struck down by the ECJ, therefore one must analyse if the transfer window is a barrier to trade, and if you look at the massive amounts of money spent during the window, and how it worked before the window, it would seem as though clubs have a budget and will spend that budget when they can...and even if they could buy players throughout the year, the same amount of money would be spent but just in a less confined time frame. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alnic3856 358 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Hmm yes but the fact that a transfer fee is usually involved , or the purchase of the players registration is surely covered by trade law if it was a free transfer then employment law would come into force, it's a complicated one to be fair. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbryce 63 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Since the s*a "independent" panel upheld our transfer embargo I have tried researching this but there is a lot of info out there so any help appreciated.It is my understanding that under the embargo we can still buy players over 18, we just cannot register them with the s*a rendering the process pointless.What I have been looking into is the European law of inhibiting free trade and employment opportunities. Surely if a European player we are interested in and who would like to sign for us becomes available then the s*a could not refuse him registration documents without breaching this law? I remember something recently involving this and the parties breaching the law were very harshly treated and forced to back down extremely quickly before it went to Brussels. As I said any help appreciated but surely a route for Mr.Keen QC to at least look into?EU law prevents discrimination, so provided Scottish/British an other European players are equally unable to sign up for Rangers, it complies with the law. 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.