MosesMcNeil 1,664 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 But Uefa and/or FIFA could force them to chuck us out and that scares the Jebus out of me. Uefa and FIFA don't want clubs taking their FA to domestic court and could put a gun to the SFA's head and make them choose, either we get or they do. Then we would be totally screwed.UEFA/FIFA/Whoever should not have the right to declare themselves above the laws of nations.Bosman is a fine example of why they should be tackled head on. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNuts 552 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Aidan Oneill QC for the SFANo more to be saidwhy??This is a ridiculous comment to make.Most Criminal Defence Lawyers in Scotland are Catholic. You will find it very very hard to come across a non-catholic professional in the field of criminal law defense.The reason for this is that it used to be regarded as the lowest form of law, and is the lowest paid. So, back in the old days, those jobs were given to the catholics.It is of no surprise that one of Scotlands top criminal defence lawyers (QC) is a Catholic.Furthermore, if you did not take such a narrow minded view on this, you would realise that he is one of Scotlands top lawyers in relation to judicial review. He wrote a journal on Constitutional judicial review in Scotland. It would only make sense the SFA would appoint such a well cited lawyer on the subject who could easily argue that the sanctions were not in need of judicial review. The SFA have appointed a very well respected and cited lawyer in the field of judicial review and human rights legislation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,600 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 why??This is a ridiculous comment to make.Most Criminal Defence Lawyers in Scotland are Catholic. You will find it very very hard to come across a non-catholic professional in the field of criminal law defense.The reason for this is that it used to be regarded as the lowest form of law, and is the lowest paid. So, back in the old days, those jobs were given to the catholics.It is of no surprise that one of Scotlands top criminal defence lawyers (QC) is a Catholic.Who Tars the roads now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeonBlue 378 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 It is prohibited by Fifa for a club to take its association to the civil courts. Fifa rules dictate that the national association must expel any club which takes this action. In December last year the international body threatened to expel the Swiss FA from world football unless it set a deadline to expel Sion after the club took action in its local civil court..Well, technically its not RFC taking them to task its the fans as they are paying for the lawyer, correct me if I am wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Well, technically its not RFC taking them to task its the fans as they are paying for the lawyer, correct me if I am wrong.It is Rangers taking them to court, but the advocates fees are being paid from the RFFF Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RowP113 2 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 If we're going down we're talking this whole fucking panto down with us Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommetoyou 60 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Who Tars the roads now.have a rep Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre 1,663 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Bosman is a fine example of why they should be tackled head on.I was in the car a few weeks back and the RC phone in was on, a night that Fraser Wishart was on talking about the players position in all this and somebody (and I actually think it was Wishart ) responded to a caller who said he thought the ban was illegal under EC law by saying that Fifa rules "trump" EC law and that there is precedent for this. I begged for the next caller to phone up and simply say "Hello panel, just on that last point isn't the Bosman case pretty strong precedent that what you've just said is utter bollocks" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 It would only make sense the SFA would appoint such a well cited lawyer on the subject who could easily argue that the sanctions were not in need of judicial review.But only if you can first get your head round the SFA stating last year it was too expensive to go to court against Celtic, but this year... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I was in the car a few weeks back and the RC phone in was on, a night that Fraser Wishart was on talking about the players position in all this and somebody (and I actually think it was Wishart ) responded to a caller who said he thought the ban was illegal under EC law by saying that Fifa rules "trump" EC law and that there is precedent for this. I begged for the next caller to phone up and simply say "Hello panel, just on that last point isn't the Bosman case pretty strong precedent that what you've just said is utter bollocks"There's no way that FIFA trumps EU law. Not now, not ever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre 1,663 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 There's no way that FIFA trumps EU law. Not now, not ever.I know, that was what was so ridiculous about whoever it was that said it actually saying it. It was awful, condescending tone to the caller (who I think was wrong in his interpretation anyway but that's not important) and stating something that was so ridiculous as that that i just wanted the next caller to call them out on it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosesMcNeil 1,664 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 There's no way that FIFA trumps EU law. Not now, not ever.Indeed not - but the blackmail card of banning whole nations from their competitions should any club seek justice is appalling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Indeed not - but the blackmail card of banning whole nations from their competitions should any club seek justice is appalling. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Indeed not - but the blackmail card of banning whole nations from their competitions should any club seek justice is appalling.Agreed, and surely illegal. Imagine FIFA/UEFA trying to tell a Scottish court that they can't rule on a case between a Scottish company and its Scottish regulator. The Scottish court wouldn't hesitate to tell FIFA/UEFA to butt out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHB 63 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 why??This is a ridiculous comment to make.Most Criminal Defence Lawyers in Scotland are Catholic. You will find it very very hard to come across a non-catholic professional in the field of criminal law defense.The reason for this is that it used to be regarded as the lowest form of law, and is the lowest paid. So, back in the old days, those jobs were given to the catholics.It is of no surprise that one of Scotlands top criminal defence lawyers (QC) is a Catholic.Furthermore, if you did not take such a narrow minded view on this, you would realise that he is one of Scotlands top lawyers in relation to judicial review. He wrote a journal on Constitutional judicial review in Scotland. It would only make sense the SFA would appoint such a well cited lawyer on the subject who could easily argue that the sanctions were not in need of judicial review. The SFA have appointed a very well respected and cited lawyer in the field of judicial review and human rights legislation.First of all, let me just say that I have zero interest in the religion of the SFA's QC.However, he may be well respected and very knowledgeable but he can only work with what he has. To quote Mr. O'Neill ....."We don't want a clunky reading of these rules which means either we have a useless sanction or a nuclear option. That is just nonsensical."Well the rules are what they are. What he is really saying is that they want to interpret them as they see fit, ignore them as they see fit and add new ones as they see fit. Obviously, I am no judge. But you either have rules or you do not have rules and nowhere in the 'rules' did it specify a registration ban as a punishment for the 'crimes' we were alleged to have committed. That the sanction is 'useless' is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is the sanction that was specified in the rules. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWRFC 101 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 First of all, let me just say that I have zero interest in the religion of the SFA's QC.However, he may be well respected and very knowledgeable but he can only work with what he has. To quote Mr. O'Neill ....."We don't want a clunky reading of these rules which means either we have a useless sanction or a nuclear option. That is just nonsensical."Well the rules are what they are. What he is really saying is that they want to interpret them as they see fit, ignore them as they see fit and add new ones as they see fit. Obviously, I am no judge. But you either have rules or you do not have rules and nowhere in the 'rules' did it specify a registration ban as a punishment for the 'crimes' we were alleged to have committed. That the sanction is 'useless' is not relevant. What is relevant is that it is the sanction that was specified in the rules.If you get caught speeding in your car you should get a £60 fine or 3 points on your license..but if you're Rangers you get a £1000 fine and 6 months in jail...that's what's happened to us!BASTARDS! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHB 63 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Agreed, and surely illegal. Imagine FIFA/UEFA trying to tell a Scottish court that they can't rule on a case between a Scottish company and its Scottish regulator. The Scottish court wouldn't hesitate to tell FIFA/UEFA to butt out. This was the situation Sion found themselves in. FIFA (based in Zurich) was telling the Swiss FA to punish Sion for taking UEFA (based in Nyon) to court. Sion made a criminal complaint against Platini and Giannini for 'constraint'.It is akin to a friend of the accused making threats to the plaintiff to try to get them to drop their case. If it was you or me we would end up in jail. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
legalbeagle 3,734 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 In almost any other body in the world, they would look at the case, realise the punishment they have to give, realise that they didn't feel it was enough, and resolve to change the rules for future cases.Look at Motherwell in administration, there was no huge clamour for 10 points per season to be retrospectively taken off them, but the rules were changed afterwards.... it is obvious, common sense.If the suspension/expulsion punishment was too severe, then they couldn't give it, if the next worst they could do was a hefty fine, then that is what they are stuck with.I am sick and tired of the constant punishment orgy going on anyway, I do not think we should run away from any of our responsibilities, I don't think many on here think that either, but I think most of us just want the rules to be applied, and the relevant punishments.We are not jumping up and down complaining about 10 points deductions, or not being able to play in Europe next season, etc... because we recognise the rules and what price we have to pay, it is the ad-hoc stuff that is so ridiculous. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S1lv3r 274 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Indeed not - but the blackmail card of banning whole nations from their competitions should any club seek justice is appalling.Main thing about Europe is that Most it seems are catholic nations.Platini (catholic as are all his mates in uefa) and the rest will not have like ONE BIT of renegades chanting 'ftp' and such at Rangers games which as you know were shown on sky sports across europe... especially champions league games, imagine if you will all the football-minded tuning or for that matter seeing highlights... and listening to this scottish lot giving it large on ftp... no way they'd be chuffed.... hence the fines etc.We clean up our act and I'd imagine Uefa would like The Gers more and at the same time we save the Club monies.So we hate the bob hope.... but our Club don't need the extra agro.I'm of mind that the transfer embargo WILL be overturned given that it must be unlawful ? The sfa MUST do as told when it comes to Uefa and any Euro court rulings. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rfc#1. 1,877 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Fair enough. So we are going to the court against the transfer embargo?Yes we're trying to get it overturned in court. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHB 63 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Main thing about Europe is that Most it seems are catholic nations.Platini (catholic as are all his mates in uefa) and the rest will not have like ONE BIT of renegades chanting 'ftp' and such at Rangers games which as you know were shown on sky sports across europe... especially champions league games, imagine if you will all the football-minded tuning or for that matter seeing highlights... and listening to this scottish lot giving it large on ftp... no way they'd be chuffed.... hence the fines etc.We clean up our act and I'd imagine Uefa would like The Gers more and at the same time we save the Club monies.So we hate the bob hope.... but our Club don't need the extra agro.I'm of mind that the transfer embargo WILL be overturned given that it must be unlawful ? The sfa MUST do as told when it comes to Uefa and any Euro court rulings.Having lived in and travelled extensively in continental Europe, nobody gives a flying one about religion. Except, that is, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Here, it seems, we are obsessed with it. And, as fewer and fewer people actually go to church, the obsession seems to get worse. I hate Celtic because they are mhanky bassas, not because most are catholic. Time we got over this obsession. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ally62 393 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 So whats the bottom line, are they cunts barred out of Europe or no? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I am lost here. So if we take the sfa to court, they can throw us out, but that means other teams cannot play in europe? Am I right? It depends on how Villa get on in Vienna Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 why??This is a ridiculous comment to make.Most Criminal Defence Lawyers in Scotland are Catholic. You will find it very very hard to come across a non-catholic professional in the field of criminal law defense.The reason for this is that it used to be regarded as the lowest form of law, and is the lowest paid. So, back in the old days, those jobs were given to the catholics.It is of no surprise that one of Scotlands top criminal defence lawyers (QC) is a Catholic.Furthermore, if you did not take such a narrow minded view on this, you would realise that he is one of Scotlands top lawyers in relation to judicial review. He wrote a journal on Constitutional judicial review in Scotland. It would only make sense the SFA would appoint such a well cited lawyer on the subject who could easily argue that the sanctions were not in need of judicial review. The SFA have appointed a very well respected and cited lawyer in the field of judicial review and human rights legislation.All that stuff in the Tablet was baloney and emotional clap trapAnother one of the Opus mafia Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,286 Posted May 26, 2012 Share Posted May 26, 2012 why??This is a ridiculous comment to make.Most Criminal Defence Lawyers in Scotland are Catholic. You will find it very very hard to come across a non-catholic professional in the field of criminal law defense.The reason for this is that it used to be regarded as the lowest form of law, and is the lowest paid. So, back in the old days, those jobs were given to the catholics.It is of no surprise that one of Scotlands top criminal defence lawyers (QC) is a Catholic.Furthermore, if you did not take such a narrow minded view on this, you would realise that he is one of Scotlands top lawyers in relation to judicial review. He wrote a journal on Constitutional judicial review in Scotland. It would only make sense the SFA would appoint such a well cited lawyer on the subject who could easily argue that the sanctions were not in need of judicial review. The SFA have appointed a very well respected and cited lawyer in the field of judicial review and human rights legislation.vincent lunny will be one as well ... funny that 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.