Jump to content

Charles Green Coming on STV News


debear
 Share

Recommended Posts

About as useful as a fucking chocolate tea pot.

rangers chiefs expressed "shock" and "dismay" after the club lost an appeal against an sfa fine and player-signing ban.

Club administrators claimed the punishment imposed was "not competent" and said they intended to challenge the appeal.

Paul Clark, of administrators Duff and Phelps, said: "The decision 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 a review of this most disappointing decision and it is a matter of regret that the certainty and finality Rangers sought on this matter have not been achieved. Everyone at Rangers is bitterly disappointed and dismayed at this outcome."

Charles Green, who leads a consortium buying 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 and will find it hard to take that the club has been so heavily punished for the actions of individuals."

The SFA said the tribunal would give its reasons in full at a later date, but added the three-man appeals panel found the sanctions imposed last month by a disciplinary tribunal were "competent". It means Rangers will now not be able to sign any players over 18 for the next year.

The club will also have to pay a fine of £160,000 for bringing the game into disrepute.

The SFA last night released a statement containing a summary of the reasons for the tribunal's decision.

It stated: "The disciplinary tribunal was correct to determine the conduct involved – especially the deliberate non-payment of very large sums, estimated in excess of £13m of tax in the form of PAYE, NIC and VAT – was attributable to the club as a member of the Scottish FA.

"It was correct also in holding that the maximum fine available was £100,000 and on its own was inadequate as a punishment. It was therefore correct to select an additional sanction. The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect."

The appeals tribunal, the statement said, noted that "serious consideration" had been given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had "obvious consequences for the survival of the club".

But the disciplinary tribunal rejected these as too severe and the appeals tribunal agreed with that conclusion.

The statement added: "Although the tribunal has listened carefully to the representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the additional sanction, it has concluded this sanction was proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute.

"In particular, the tribunal recognises that the disciplinary tribunal decision does not affect Rangers' ability to extend the contracts of existing players, including those whose contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those currently on loan to other clubs.

"The tribunal observes that Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category."

The panel was chaired by High Court judge Lord Carloway, with Spartans chairman Craig Graham and former Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan.

Rangers received the ban and the bulk of their fine because of a disrepute charge arising from their non-payment of more than £13m in taxes during the reign of former owner Craig Whyte, who bought the club from Sir David Murray last year.

If the club decides to challenge the decision, it is likely to take its case to FIFA's Dispute Resolution Chamber, then the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear...bit of stage fright? Happens to the best of us :lol:

He only had a short window of opportunity and the pressure got to him. You've got to remember he's almost 60 as well.

Apparently he was in his prime when fucking Sheffield United in the late 90s :belm2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think Keen works on a 'No win - no fee' basis?? :unsure:

That is a ridiculous statement to make.................................................................................................................................

It's a fee for a no win, he is on tongue.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...