TheLawMan 6,240 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 You seem to have trouble understanding "with all disciplinary matters across Scottish FA jurisdiction"I would expect no less from someone so slavishly supporting something so patently unjust, like I said we should let the court decide rather than you or a kangaroo panel who made up "rules" to suit. I dont have trouble understanding anything. Tell me which protocol was breached. Are you saying you dont believe another team say like Dunfermline would have got the same penalty as us ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 I dont have trouble understanding anything. Tell me which protocol was breached. Are you saying you dont believe another team say like Dunfermline would have got the same penalty as us ?You obviously do not understand the protocol involving lunny.Which part of the club's assessment do you disagree with. "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.So you think it is ok for the kangaroo mob to impose sanctions that do not exist/are not available ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 You obviously do not understand the protocol involving lunny.Which part of the club's assessment do you disagree with. "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.So you think it is ok for the kangaroo mob to impose sanctions that do not exist/are not available ?More moving of the goalposts. You fecked up on the protocol involving the Judge, so now you are trying to move the topic to something completely different.Bottom line is, and no-one seems to have picked up on this, in fact some are saying things to the contrary, Dundee were handed a transfer embargo for a similar type situation around 3 years ago. They appealed the decision to the SFL and it was upheld. They then appealed it to the SFA and it was upheld. Coincidentally, or not, it was also Lord Carloway who sat in the final appeal.In court cases, this is normally known as "precedent" The accusations that the SFA are out to get us or that Carloway was ruling on some sort of prejudiced basis hold no water. In fact, if they have found it any other way, the exact opposite could have been argued.And it would have been as well, because the SFA are anti-Sellic as well dontcha know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornblower 3 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 So if Carloway was on both panels then perhaps he is biased then? Or saving face Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 More moving of the goalposts. You fecked up on the protocol involving the Judge, so now you are trying to move the topic to something completely different.Bottom line is, and no-one seems to have picked up on this, in fact some are saying things to the contrary, Dundee were handed a transfer embargo for a similar type situation around 3 years ago. They appealed the decision to the SFL and it was upheld. They then appealed it to the SFA and it was upheld. Coincidentally, or not, it was also Lord Carloway who sat in the final appeal.In court cases, this is normally known as "precedent" The accusations that the SFA are out to get us or that Carloway was ruling on some sort of prejudiced basis hold no water. In fact, if they have found it any other way, the exact opposite could have been argued.And it would have been as well, because the SFA are anti-Sellic as well dontcha know. Apparently your reply to an answer you don't like is "moving the goalposts" maybe you watch to much LA Law and that is why you don't want my club to defend itself. I think we should defend ourself you don't hence your clutching at straws notwithstanding denying protocol as it applies to the compliance officer you are happy to see the club shafted without defending itself, how very not The Rangers way. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLawMan 6,240 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Apparently your reply to an answer you don't like is "moving the goalposts" maybe you watch to much LA Law and that is why you don't want my club to defend itself. I think we should defend ourself you don't hence your clutching at straws notwithstanding denying protocol as it applies to the compliance officer you are happy to see the club shafted without defending itself, how very not The Rangers way. Nowhere have i said we shouldnt be defending ourselves. Im merely pointing out the few holes in many peoples arguments which always seem to end up with "theyre aw against us" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Nowhere have i said we shouldnt be defending ourselves. Im merely pointing out the few holes in many peoples arguments which always seem to end up with "theyre aw against us" Just in case you missed it."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...
trevelyan 44 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 When a player signs a contract there are all sorts of clauses put in. Why not one which includes a bonus based on the results of the team, whether he makes a contribution or not?By your logic, a player signing for Hibs should be able to demand CL football through the courts simply because the league qualification rules are skewed in favour of the clubs which finish at the top of the table! No I think if a club finishes above Hibs,it's usually because they are playing better, so Hibs/the player have no argumentIf our manager deems the new signing good enough for a starting place that's differentIf the club wanted,they could make sure the new signing was sympathetic to usThey then sit down with proper lawyers and write a contract,imoOne that we/the player has a good chance of winning outside of Scotland Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 uefa know they can't enforce this. I doubt the sfa can. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 No I think if a club finishes above Hibs,it's usually because they are playing better, so Hibs/the player have no argumentIf our manager deems the new signing good enough for a starting place that's differentIf the club wanted,they could make sure the new signing was sympathetic to usThey then sit down with proper lawyers and write a contract,imoOne that we/the player has a good chance of winning outside of ScotlandI shall await the court drama with bated breath. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 uefa know they can't enforce this. I doubt the sfa can.They already have. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 They already have.enforced it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 enforced it?Is there a delayed start date? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Is there a delayed start date?the transfer window opening. the embargo from administration. a player wanting to sign. all required before it can be tested. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornblower 3 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 the transfer window opening. the embargo from administration. a player wanting to sign. all required before it can be tested.So June 1 looks like a deadline then. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 the transfer window opening. the embargo from administration. a player wanting to sign. all required before it can be tested.So the investigation, the hearing and the subsequent appeal were nothing more than SFA grandstanding, and their next action will be to cow down when it comes to the implementation? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 the transfer window opening. the embargo from administration. a player wanting to sign. all required before it can be tested.No an injunction can be sought until a legally empowered court of the land makes a decision. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 So June 1 looks like a deadline then.June 9 is when registration opens, but if a CVA is agreed, we will still be in administration at that point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 June 9 is when registration opens, but if a CVA is agreed, we will still be in administration at that point.actually I am not sure of that. I read somewhere that the sfa consider us out of admin when its agreed not at the end of the 28 day cooling off period. worth looking into. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 So the investigation, the hearing and the subsequent appeal were nothing more than SFA grandstanding, and their next action will be to cow down when it comes to the implementation?with the right contest yes. of course that assumes green isn't delighted by the ban. I suspect he is. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 actually I am not sure of that. I read somewhere that the sfa consider us out of admin when its agreed not at the end of the 28 day cooling off period. worth looking into.By definition, it can only be agreed once the cooling off period ends. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 3,009 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 with the right contest yes. of course that assumes green isn't delighted by the ban. I suspect he is.You failed to mention any contest in your original list. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 You failed to mention any contest in your original list.that's what I meant by a player wanting to sign. at what point do police enforce a law. when it becomes a law or when someone tries to break it. impose may be the word you want. they can impose an embargo. but enforcing it may well prove impossible. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 By definition, it can only be agreed once the cooling off period ends.definisions are fuzzy at the sfa. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBillyLives 27 Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 We probably wont move until we find out CVA or newcoIn case SFA put a spanner in the worksNow if it were down to me or you we would sign a player as soon as and line up a friendlyWin it and no bonus for the player Player goes straight to courtWhat's all this insistence about win bonuses? What happens when a player is not selected by his manager? What happens when a player is suspended for a red card? Or a player who is cup-tied? Do you suggest that he go to the courts every time he doesn't play a match and get a win bonus? No court in the world would accept such a pathetic case. Bosman was totally different as the player was out of contract but the club refused to release his registration without a transfer fee. The restriction of trade was based on his not being able to sign for another club. In the present case there is no restriction on a player signing and being paid a salary. Bonuses are not the same as a salary. 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.