If the court throws out the transfer embargo can Uefa reimpose it

[topgoalie 637]

They hit us with the maximum fine as well as a transfer embargo so that argument doesn't wash

jerfeelgood i fell for it,fcn dickhead,,,,,,

[GLASGOWRFC 101]

Was the disrepute thing not the inference that the directors should have known what was going on?

We've been hammered so many fukkin times one penalty fades into another

Here's the exact statement issued by the SFA for the transfer embargo;

The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 66 and imposed the maximum fine of £100,000 payable within 12 months. In addition, the Tribunal imposed a prohibition in terms of Article 94.1 and 95 of the Articles of Association, prohibiting Rangers FC for a period of 12 months from the date of determination from seeking registration with the Scottish FA of any player not currently with the club, excluding any player under the age of 18 years.

[jerfeelgood 0]

i thought the fine was for a seperate charge?

as in

non payment of paye/nic gave up the fine

fit and proper persons craig whyte gave up his ban

disrepute over tansfer non payments gave up the embargo

................. it's a basic tenet of law that if you are charged with multiple offences you receive seperate and relevant sanctions....

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

So who did we not pay a transfer fee for?

[GLASGOWRFC 101]

Basically because Whyte didn't pay the monies due via rule 66 we got the embargo..here is rule 66 explained;

Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

as in

non payment of paye/nic gave up the fine

fit and proper persons craig whyte gave up his ban

disrepute over tansfer non payments gave up the embargo

................. it's a basic tenet of law that if you are charged with multiple offences you receive seperate and relevant sanctions....

[Crespie6 334]

As above.Is this not a danger because CVA will mean only part of football debts will be repaiid?Hate to be negative but this seems a real problem to me

Uefa can suck ma boaby

[Crespie6 334]

Basically because Whyte didn't pay the monies due via rule 66 we got the embargo..here is rule 66 explained;

Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

..but fiddling kids is fine (Rule 66A)

[GLASGOWRFC 101]

So who did we not pay a transfer fee for?

Not sure of them all but Arsenal, man city were 2 we owed money to as the Jelavic money wasn't due yet.

[GLASGOWRFC 101]

..but fiddling kids is fine (Rule 66A)

Sweep sweep....

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

What about a manager calling people cheats, constantly transgressing the rules over several seasons and questioning everyones integrity, especially referees?

That brought the game in to disrepute so much the fukkin referees went on strike

The authorities made up a nice new sanction for him though, they said that sitting out the rest of the game was punishment enough for being sent off

Unprecedented made up rules abound in our game

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Not sure of them all but Arsenal, man city were 2 we owed money to as the Jelavic money wasn't due yet.

The Hearts money wasn't due either

[GLASGOWRFC 101]

What about a manager calling people cheats, constantly transgressing the rules over several seasons and questioning everyones integrity, especially referees?

That brought the game in to disrepute so much the fukkin referees went on strike

The authorities made up a nice new sanction for him though, they said that sitting out the rest of the game was punishment enough for being sent off

Unprecedented made up rules abound in our game

I totally agree with you...and when smelly bastard Lennon got a 4 match ban he got another 4 match ban on top but when he dug up that lawyer he challenged the SFA and one of the bans got quashed due to an argument about concurrent and consecutive being legally challenged...a pure joke!

[GLASGOWRFC 101]

The Hearts money wasn't due either

I didn't say it was bud... but the Arsenal money I think was for Bartley and I could be corrected here but I think the man city money was for Weiss

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

................. it's a basic tenet of law that if you are charged with multiple offences you receive seperate and relevant sanctions....

Unless you are Neil Lennon

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

I didn't say it was bud... but the Arsenal money I think was for Bartley and I could be corrected here but I think the man city money was for Weiss

I don't think that's what we were punished for

[jerfeelgood 0]

What about a manager calling people cheats, constantly transgressing the rules over several seasons and questioning everyones integrity, especially referees?

That brought the game in to disrepute so much the fukkin referees went on strike

The authorities made up a nice new sanction for him though, they said that sitting out the rest of the game was punishment enough for being sent off

Unprecedented made up rules abound in our game

i'm not advocating for anybody here man. as i stated earlier i'm an independent here to discuss the issues.... as a person living in scotland i've been force fed this issue for three months now and as it seems to be all anybodies talking about i thought I might try to get in on the debate.

I agree with you that the application of the rules seems to be a bit whimsical at the SFA, and that the current trend is against rangers... but the argument here is that the rules are being applied too strictly yet the other half seem to be screaming that they're not being applied strictly enough... the SFA are now up against the wall trying not to have their liver eaten by one side or the other...

[GLASGOWRFC 101]

I don't think that's what we were punished for

Btw I was under the impression it was for not paying transfer fees owed and I read it on here...but I found this;

The ban precludes Rangers from signing any player over the age of 18 years old for the next year. It was imposed after the club was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute because of financial malpractice by the Ibrox owner, Craig Whyute, who withheld PAYE and VAT from HMRC although he had deducted it at source.

My apologies mate !

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

Btw I was under the impression it was for not paying transfer fees owed and I read it on here...but I found this;

The ban precludes Rangers from signing any player over the age of 18 years old for the next year. It was imposed after the club was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute because of financial malpractice by the Ibrox owner, Craig Whyute, who withheld PAYE and VAT from HMRC although he had deducted it at source.

My apologies mate !

Yeah I thought that was the case

The argument being Whyte ran an autocratic regime where no one else had any say on what went on

The SFA deemed other directors "must have known" therefore hit us with the transfer embargo

"Must have known" is yet another SFA made up expression and to divert our incredulity from that expression they threw in. an analogy about match fixing

Like I said before its unprecedented - wtf match fixing was mentioned for is beyond comprehension but it didn't stop the press having a field day

So going back to Jer's comment about basic tenants of law "must have known" is hardly "beyond reasonable doubt" especially when directors were resigning because they were being excluded from the corporate governance of the club

It's now a matter of principle and we should fight it all the way

Regan is out of his depth

[jerfeelgood 0]

Yeah I thought that was the case

The argument being Whyte ran an autocratic regime where no one else had any say on what went on

The SFA deemed other directors "must have known" therefore hit us with the transfer embargo

"Must have known" is yet another SFA made up expression and to divert our incredulity from that expression they threw in. an analogy about match fixing

Like I said before its unprecedented - wtf match fixing was mentioned for is beyond comprehension but it didn't stop the press having a field day

So going back to Jer's comment about basic tenants of law "must have known" is hardly "beyond reasonable doubt" especially when directors were resigning because they were being excluded from the corporate governance of the club

It's now a matter of principle and we should fight it all the way

Regan is out of his depth

out of curiosity (so i don't have to go trolling through other threads) where do you stand on griers, clark whitewhouse et al.

"must have known" is the same rope that bbc are trying to hang griers/D&P with....

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

out of curiosity (so i don't have to go trolling through other threads) where do you stand on griers, clark whitewhouse et al.

"must have known" is the same rope that bbc are trying to hang griers/D&P with....

I suspect all is not well with D&P's conduct (or one or two of them) however the BBC haven't to date proved beyond reasonable doubt there is a conflict

The timing of their documentary is interesting to say the least but we need to get the CVA agreed and the regulators can do what they want with D&P thereafter

You need to remember there's a lot riding on this CVA and at least two SPL teams have said they can't set their budgets for next year until they know if we are going to be in the SPL or not

Oh and let's not forget the Sky deal has yet to be signed

The D&P issue is a sideshow

['o'rangerblue 89]

I think what jerfeelgood is trying to tell us is that the SFA/SPL have maneuvered themselves into a corner and we are supposed to bend over and take it in the ass for the good of Scottish football or we, and possibly they, are fucked.

fuck that.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

I think what jerfeelgood is trying to tell us is that the SFA/SPL have maneuvered themselves into a corner and we are supposed to bend over and take it in the ass for the good of Scottish football or we, and possibly they, are fucked.

fuck that.

I've never heard anyone ever say we shouldn't be punished but the ongoing unprecedented punishments could conceivable see us going down

If we are going down then why should we have any loyalty to those who unjustly took us down?

The whole pack of cards can come down as well and we will end up with a League on a par with the Oirish League

Although that might suit those across the city as they aspire to be Oirish anyway

Edit - now that the USA are 5-1 up on Scotland maybe the above prophesy is closer than we think

[jerfeelgood 0]

I think what jerfeelgood is trying to tell us is that the SFA/SPL have maneuvered themselves into a corner and we are supposed to bend over and take it in the ass for the good of Scottish football or we, and possibly they, are fucked.

fuck that.

what i am trying to say is that there is surely a negotiated middle ground. that the more people stamp their feet and pull to the extremes on both sides, the harder it becomes for the people in the middle to find where that is.

edit: all or nothing gambits and ultimatums only result in polarising the issue...

[dennyloyal 0]

As I understand it (and I could be wrong!). The normal next step for appeal is the CAS. As the SFA/SPL don't recognise the autority of the CAS, they are the ultimate authority in scotland for football related matters. FIFA prohibit the integration of sporting and local judicial law for the single purpose that to do so would mean that there could never be an international competition of ANY kind as each match would be beholden to every local law in every country of the world. Can you imagine a world cup being held up because of a court case in angola to decide who qualifies from an african group stage qualifier? Thence the reason why FIFA impose strict penalties on any national football association who allow themselves to become involved in local jurisprudence. To act in any other way would compromise any concept of international competition. There is simply no other way it could function. FIFA's rules are there because they have to be able to organise transnational competiotions. UEFA may be SLIGHTLY different in their approach but remember that UEFA also allow competition entries from countries outwith the EU (Turkey, Israel etc) and thence the fudginess of whether EU law applies.

So remembering that Rangers have to apply for a local license (SFA/SPL) to compete nationally, and a UEFA license for International competiotion (thence the march 31st deadline etc). This involves signing onto the rules of the competition. SFA have to apply for a license from FIFA on behalf of the International team. Which also involves adhering to FIFA's rules. Neither of these organisations are compelled to grant applications to their competitions.

So where does that leave us. FIFA/UEFA won't step in until it sees the SFA/SPL being incapable of administering the sport in Scotland. IF Rangers take their legal case forward and win, (as I understand it) The SFA may have to recognise the result of that case in a legal sense, but are NOT compelled to grant Rangers a License to play domestic football as Rangers are trying to operate outwith the rules of the competition to which they are a signatory. In order to preserve the integrity of scottish football as a whole (from jumpers and goalosts sunday leaguers up to the SPL) the SFA would be placed in a situation where they risk every player in the country being sanctioned by FIFA and UEFA, or withdraw Rangers License.

Now what would happen if they don't withdraw Rangers license. We may argue that scottish football would not survive the loss of 40% of its fanbase. The SFA would have to argue that the entire national game cannot survive FIFA and UEFA sanction (no champions league money, no international money, zero prestige and being shunned by every other club/country who are still happy to adhere to UEFA/FIFA rules, Zero access to external transfer markets etc etc). I believe that the SFA would have to act in the only conceivable way (under pressure of the fact that while Rangers may enjoy 40% of the domestic fanbase, they only account for what 2% (random number off the top of my head to illustrate point) of domestically registered players) to protect the vast majority of its players and clubs, no matter what financial haircut it might involve...

So I try to remember that UEFA and FIFA have to be able to operate transnationally and independently, have to have a strictly enforced set of rules, and have the right to refuse access to their competitions.

I know i'm new here. and this is quite a long post. I've tried to analyse the situation as impartially as possible. I am an independent rugby fan who is simply intrigued by the ins and outs of everything that is going on at the moment in the SFA and its implications for football in the wider sense. I would like to become involved in the debate. Please don't flame me into the ground for this reason. Please feel free to pick apart my analyses.

Jer