North Rd 2,860 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Link to full story to come. You'd hope that hacks would read this first before slamming Rangers left, right and centre. It should be the SFA's turn ... Herald Sport has obtained a copy of Lord Glennie's 10-page findings after Rangers succeeded in a judicial review of the SFA's decision to hit them with a 12-month signing ban. The case will now be considered again by the SFA's own Appellate Tribunal under Lord Carloway, at a date yet to be set.Rangers were punished by the SFA for bringing the game into disrepute for, among other things, non-payment of PAYE and National Insurance contributions. They contested the punishment, rather than the verdict, and took the SFA to court. That action could yet have repercussions for the club and the governing body from the world ruling body, FIFA, but Lord Glennie ruled that their case was sound.The SFA's general disciplinary rules lay out "sanctions available to the tribunal" and "scale of sanctions". On charges of bringing the game into disrepute, the only stated sanctions are a fine, suspension, expulsion from participation in the game, ejection from the Scottish Cup and termination of membership.Lord Glennie said the decision he had to make was on whether the imposition of a 12-month transfer ban was ultra vires, in other words whether the SFA's disciplinary tribunal had the power to impose any additional sanction.He found flaws in the SFA's protocol and said there was no point specifying certain punishments for offences if tribunal panels had the power to impose any penalty they wanted to, up to the specified maximum.Lord Glennie said the SFA's QC at the Court of Session hearings, Aidan O'Neill, had effectively said "so what if it does not mention that", in relation to a transfer ban.The findings said: "It is to be noted that nowhere in the list of available sanctions is there any reference to a ban for any period on registering new players."Mr O'Neill, on behalf of the SFA says, in effect: 'so what if it does not mention that. A fine would be ridiculously low for the conduct here complained of. Suspension or expulsion, or termination of membership, would be too harsh. There must be room, reading the rule sensibly, for something in between which is proportional and effective'. The Appellate Tribunal took a somewhat similar view."Their interpretation therefore appears to be this: that the tribunal can award anything which is a lesser penalty than the maximum suspension or termination of membership. I regret that I cannot accept that view. If that was the true view there would, in my opinion, be no point in identifying specific sanctions in the columns headed 'sanctions available to the tribunal'."It seems to me to be clear that the protocol is laying down a specific range of sanctions which the tribunal may impose, depending on upon the particular offence with which the club or other member of the SFA is charged. The tribunal cannot impose sanctions not given to it in Annex A."It follows that the disciplinary tribunal and the appellate tribunal were, in my view, wrong to hold that they had power to impose the additional sanction in this case. In imposing and affirming that sanction they acted ultra vires."The fact that I find the imposition of the additional sanctions to be ultra vires does not necessarily mean that the petitioners will escape to a lighter and ineffective punishment. That is entirely a matter for the appeal tribunal and not for this case."Rangers, who were represented at the Court of Session by Richard Keen QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, did not contest the merits of the case itself or the appropriateness of any sanction which is specified in the SFA's articles of association. Nor did the club dispute a £100,000 fine, nor the fact it had brought the game into disrepute.Final Report::Full Judgementhttp://www.heraldsco...ie%20report.pdf Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elephants stoned 2,994 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 'So what if it does not mention that?' That was the best the SFAs QC could come up with? Pathetic! Just pathetic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
icrfc 11 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Let them try and chuck us out the cup or suspend us now. Let them try it and everyone will see what vindictive cunts they are. The SFA are shafted on this and should back down before they make even more of a cunt of this situation. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rfc#1. 1,877 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 'So what if it does not mention that?' That was the best the SFAs QC could come up with? Pathetic! Just pathetic.If it wasn't so serious that statement from sfa QC would be laughable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Rd 2,860 Posted June 2, 2012 Author Share Posted June 2, 2012 Seeing the SFA QC stated other punishments were too harsh, I see a Scottish Cup ban Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I just read that quote from the SFA's QC in the evening times and laughed out loud!! Pathetic, may as well had phil 10 names representing them with that sort of arguement bastards are scunnered!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bilko89 507 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Let them try and chuck us out the cup or suspend us now. Let them try it and everyone will see what vindictive cunts they are. The SFA are shafted on this and should back down before they make even more of a cunt of this situation.They're fucked! Throwing is out of competitions is too harsh, fine was too lenient. No where to go now then! The phrase shooting themselves in the foot comes to mind Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Wee Aiden should find himself a new profession. Imagine making your case to the judge "So what..."? Apparently he said in an interview after the verdict "AM I BOVVAD"?So, the judge has thrown out the embargo and the SFA argued themselves that the other punishments would be too harsh. The only possible option they have then is to settle on the fine. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick9005 7 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Seeing the SFA QC stated other punishments were too harsh, I see a Scottish Cup banThink you may be right. Although, even this would do more damage to the SFA and member teams than the damage it would to us! So they have themselves in a tight spot now for such a ridiculous punishment to begin with! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reservoir Dug 5 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 According to big DJ in evening times yesterday, Rangers and SFA were willing to accept either a 12 month transfer ban deferred for one year, or a Scottish Cup ban, but the appeal board threw those options out. I think it will end up with us getting both those options together. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeonBlue 378 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The SC ban is 1 option but would I be correct in thinking they could use "Suspension" rule?Could they in theory suspend RFC for 5 weeks from the beginning of the season which would be the equivalent of a 15 point deduction on top of the 10 along with the SC ban. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 According to big DJ in evening times yesterday, Rangers and SFA were willing to accept either a 12 month transfer ban deferred for one year, or a Scottish Cup ban, but the appeal board threw those options out. I think it will end up with us getting both those options together.fuck that, we should be fighting the 160k fine now we've had the embargo thrown out.we had out punishment, we got 10 points for going into admin.we should take the SFA to court to pay our players wages, since that is what they done for Gretna when HMRC put them into admin over unpaid tax. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The SC ban is 1 option but would I be correct in thinking they could use "Suspension" rule?Could they in theory suspend RFC for 5 weeks from the beginning of the season which would be the equivalent of a 15 point deduction on top of the 10 along with the SC ban.Possibly.But someone find me reference to the Appellate Tribunal's power which explicitly enables it to substitute one sanction for another. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reservoir Dug 5 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 fuck that, we should be fighting the 160k fine now we've had the embargo thrown out.we had out punishment, we got 10 points for going into admin.we should take the SFA to court to pay our players wages, since that is what they done for Gretna when HMRC put them into admin over unpaid tax.Thats the one thing thats bothered me since we went into admin, absolutely no offers of help from SFA to Rangers, they could have done their bit to help out a member club and saved the investigations until we were back on our feet. Its as if they just sat there waiting for it to happen then get the boot in Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rfc#1. 1,877 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Thats the one thing thats bothered me since we went into admin, absolutely no offers of help from SFA to Rangers, they could have done their bit to help out a member club and saved the investigations until we were back on our feet. Its as if they just sat there waiting for it to happen then get the boot inI think you hit the nail on the head there. They've been waiting a long, long time to have a kick at us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 The SC ban is 1 option but would I be correct in thinking they could use "Suspension" rule?Could they in theory suspend RFC for 5 weeks from the beginning of the season which would be the equivalent of a 15 point deduction on top of the 10 along with the SC ban.no, because a 15 point deduction would be -15. a suspension would see us start on 0.it would never work though, how could you schedule for that? Who would be the 5 teams that get to avoid playing us? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeonBlue 378 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 no, because a 15 point deduction would be -15. a suspension would see us start on 0.it would never work though, how could you schedule for that? Who would be the 5 teams that get to avoid playing us?Well the 1st five teams you would play in the league as set out for that season would all be awarded 3 points so you would be starting off with -10 and the loss of the first 5 gamesEdit: Plus FIFA could not give a fuck if the Scottish game died, there is no money in it for them they are more interested in countries that will cross their palm with gold, so FIFA telling the SFA to kick us out isn't going to bother them to much. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky_ 893 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Well the 1st five teams you would play in the league as set out for that season would all be awarded 3 points so you would be starting off with -10 and the loss of the first 5 gameshuh? that would be a deduction though? because any negative points score would be points 'taken' off. defeats yor points simply remain at 0.also, lets just say the 5 teams that get awarded 3 poitns are: Hibs, Hearts, Kilmarnock, Celtic & Aberdeen. Comer the end of the season Hibs avoid relegation to ICT (who we beat in every game) by 2 points. They would argue that Hibs got an unfair advantage by being given 3 points against us, when they had to play us (and lost).a suspension is a non starter, it would only work if it was for an entire season. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZeonBlue 378 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 well that only leaves 1, kicking us out because I dont see being thrown out of the SC being enough for FIFA if they are hell bent on getting involved and being suspended for 1 year is as good as killing the club as Green would walk away along with all the players and then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reservoir Dug 5 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 if its true that Green is working with SFA to get a face-saving compromise then its obviously gonna be another made up sanction that Rangers wont contest, FIFA will be happy, Tims will be raging and life carries on as normal. What a fucked-up league we have, shame we cant get out of it Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprotson11 147 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 fuck that, we should be fighting the 160k fine now we've had the embargo thrown out.we had out punishment, we got 10 points for going into admin.we should take the SFA to court to pay our players wages, since that is what they done for Gretna when HMRC put them into admin over unpaid tax. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soulboy 2,518 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Neil Doncaster has already said we don't need an sfa licence to play in the league so if they suspend us it can only be the scottish cup and europe, as we are not in europe it's only really a scottish cup ban for a year or a ban from europe and scottish cup for life if they terminate our membership Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reservoir Dug 5 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 and what would happen if we were ever relegated? do u need a licence to play in the SFL? Or would they just increase the number of teams in SPL to keep us up? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadman 342 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 to be honest i didn't really have a problem with the transfer embargo - it was the stipulation that only players under the age of 18 that could be registered that got my goat. If they had made the stipulation that players, for talkings sake, could only be signed if they were under 23 or over 30 it would have at least given the club a fair chance at signing players if the existing squad (or some of)decides to leave. My worry now is that the appelate tribunal now deems the sanctions that were previously 'too harsh' to no longer be - the sanctions available are ALL that can be chosen from and they'll decide upon the harshest as the lesser punishments weren't deemed to be harsh enough (they'll then blame the club for forcing them to go down that route and that it was of their own doing) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
willieboyrfc 11 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 thinking about this a lot just now but if the SFA suspend us from the league then the tv deal is out the window from sky most sponsors would probably walk away so the SFA would really be shooting themselves in the foot. if they kick us out the scottish cup they would also loose sponsors because no one would want to sponsor a cup with just 1 side of the old firm in it 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.