Court Victory could finish Rangers

[ricksen_da_best 2,034]

If they chuck us out of scottish football, THEN can we apply for the english leagues??

[scottyc06 6,927]

Funny this..It really (and I was always pessimistic) open the doors for us to move out of Scottish football.

I´m not saying England beacuse that is way to uncertain but Northern-Ireland?

Aye that's the answer, let's go to a league that is worse than our own! Presuming that wasn't uncertain either?!

[boss 1,941]

Of course it's discrimination it's age discrimination as we can't sign anyone over 18.if they had said we can't sign anyone at all that would've been different

It is indeed yet another matter that the SFA might be guilty of age discrimination - they are saying they would register a 17 year old but not register a 37 year old - good luck in defending that one, Regan.

[caseyjones 3,009]

They can't expel us for breaking the rules if those rules were illegal.

Again here's a gedankenexperiment:

The SFA have two rules:

- no all black teams are allowed

- no team can take the SFA to court

The SFA expel a team for playing all black players.

That team takes the SFA to court to challenge the rule.

The rule is deemed illegal.

The SFA expel the team for taking them to court.

Under your interpretation there is nothing the team can do about their expulsion.

Under my interpretation the team can go to court to have them reinstated, and there would be a very real possiblity of the executive members of the SFA charged with contempt of court.

You're obsessed with blacks as much as you were with gunslinger.

A rule which discriminates on the basis of colour would be illegal because of the law of the land.

In what way does that equate to a panel having unlimited powers, up to and including expulsion from the association, to deal with members who break the rules?

The case is also weakened because of our backing towards those powers.

[Turnberry18 3,204]

The criteria for the authorities to punish Rangers has already referred to by a journalist last week when he said any effort to "give Rangers a right good kicking" would be done in the pretext that their interests were served also. Can Rangers be given a fair treatment even on that basis? It is a fair means that the club question any treatment handed out by any of the authorities when it is openly acknowledged that any judgement would be handed out from a position of bias.

[3Proddie1690 132]

Sure, they won't be happy if the decision is over turned, but expel us from the league? highly doubtful. stories a load of bunk.

[boss 1,941]

Why, as a club, did we agree to the JP's unlimited powers prior to them sitting on our case?

That's easily dealt with. Our interpretation of the JP protocol was that the prescribed punishments would be adhered to and not trumped by a catch-all that has no precedent and which we reasonably believed would only be used in exceptional circumstances where the SFA itself did not contribute to the breach by alleged failures of their own. Also, if we alone had voted against the JP protocol it would have had no effect as it would have been adopted anyway.

[theiconicman 3,002]

Nothing is above the law and nothing can be exempt from the law, no matter what you agree to or sign up to.

[caseyjones 3,009]

It makers a nonsense of the footballing authorities if their rules appear to fly in the face of the law of the land.

Wasn't it McBride (of all people) who was advising the SFA/SPL in getting their rules updated to revise such anomalies?

The rules on this forum fly in the face of the laws of the land. What's your point?

[Turnberry18 3,204]

Nothing is above the law and nothing can be exempt from the law, no matter what you agree to or sign up to.

That is entirely true, and the paradox is also true: that the Law is not above the Law either. In such a situation Rangers has no option but to consider the legal means open to it.

[Smile 26,622]

You're obsessed with blacks as much as you were with gunslinger.

A rule which discriminates on the basis of colour would be illegal because of the law of the land.

In what way does that equate to a panel having unlimited powers, up to and including expulsion from the association, to deal with members who break the rules?

The case is also weakened because of our backing towards those powers.

Is this bit Ironic Obsession.

[Mitchy1094 3]

I think the point this guy is trying to make is that by us going to a civil court we are in breach of FIFA rules. FIFA will instruct the SFA therefore to deal with it quickly or risk themselves being punished with the likes of scotland ie national side, and all clubs getting a world ban by FIFA.

The rules do state that one such sanction they can impose is expulsion,,im not sure but I think FIFA can also direct them on such action also. If we stick to our guns tho, its a lose lose for the SFA,but if FIFA step in we could well be shooting ourself in the foot. Either way its dodgy ground and hard now for either us or the SFA to back out and still save face.

But if the expel us, it's because we've appealed to the highest court in the land, obtained a ruling in our favour and the SPL's response is "Get tae....." Then there's a whole raft of moves for us to make, none ending well for the SPL.

[Smile 26,622]

How can the SFA have two scum board director members making a Ruling over their Greatest Rival, why do all the sanctions favour the scum.

Methinks Peter thought them up.

[caseyjones 3,009]

That's easily dealt with. Our interpretation of the JP protocol was that the prescribed punishments would be adhered to and not trumped by a catch-all that has no precedent and which we reasonably believed would only be used in exceptional circumstances where the SFA itself did not contribute to the breach by alleged failures of their own. Also, if we alone had voted against the JP protocol it would have had no effect as it would have been adopted anyway.

So it's all down to interpretation then? Strong case.

[caseyjones 3,009]

How cant the SFA have two scum board members making a Ruling over their Greatest Rival, why do all the sanctions favour the scum.

Makes no sense.

Who made the ruling?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Is interpretation not a two edged sword.

[caseyjones 3,009]

But if the expel us, it's because we've appealed to the highest court in the land, obtained a ruling in our favour and the SPL's response is "Get tae....." Then there's a whole raft of moves for us to make, none ending well for the SPL.

They can expel us even if we lose in the Court of Session.

[Smile 26,622]

Who made the ruling?

Whoever they pick, or whatever they feel needs to be made up to punish Rangers as far as i can see.

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

The rules on this forum fly in the face of the laws of the land. What's your point?

This forum does not run Scottish football. Sadly.

My point is that I believe that no sporting authority has a right to apply rules that contradict national law.

Bosman, for example.

[Smile 26,622]

They can expel us even if we lose in the Court of Session.

The League will die on its arse if they do.

[caseyjones 3,009]

Whoever they pick, or whatever they feel needs to be made up to punish Rangers as far as i can see.

No, you said 'two scum board members'.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

This forum does not run Scottish football. Sadly.

My point is that I believe that no sporting authority has a right to apply rules that contradict national law.

Bosman, for example.

Spot on ....but a number on here just can't acknowledge this. They continually look for the negative in everything associated with the administrators.

[caseyjones 3,009]

This forum does not run Scottish football. Sadly.

My point is that I believe that no sporting authority has a right to apply rules that contradict national law.

Bosman, for example.

So it's just sporting authorities now? What rules contradicted national law?

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

So it's just sporting authorities now? What rules contradicted national law?

The right for a company to hire people.............christ can't believe you even questioned that

[MosesMcNeil 1,664]

So it's just sporting authorities now? What rules contradicted national law?

Perhaps you missed this - we're talking about The Rangers and the sporting authorities. It was you that wanted to extend the parameters to include fitba forums. For reasons best known to yourself.

Anyway - as if you didn't know - we are in court today challenging a football authority ruling. It's been widely reported the case we are making is the body concerned did not have the power to hand such a judgement down. That's quite a contradiction right there.