Sweetheart 8,458 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I have asked this question several times and no-one has been able to respond.Under which section of the Judicial Panel Protocol does the Appellate tribunal have the explicit power to substitute one sanction for another (i.e. a suspension in place of a transfer embargo)? found this, it's worth a readMy link Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubblybear 258 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Guys i know he's not popular among you all but read leggo's blog today very intersting. My own thoughts are similar to his, take them all on, we have nothing to lose, and if we do lose bring them all down with us.We are a scottish team, we should go by the law of our land not fifa or uafa didn't see them commenting re the tax cases only when sfa got it wrong, the should be more embaressed angry with them!Would it be that bad if we.they were all disqualified? prob no we are crap anyway so we keep being told, just do to others, what others do to you we no playing neither are you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lau03143 80 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Surely they might as well just expell the club, how can any club stand going a year with no money coming in from attendances? Can you just freeze everything? I doubt it. Has this ever happened before in world football??They won't suspend us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bunter 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 They won't suspend us.Great! Just to put my mind at ease can you tell me what you base this on? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben10 2,257 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 the taigs are grasping Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben10 2,257 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Great! Just to put my mind at ease can you tell me what you base this on? It must be marching season. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubblybear 258 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Great! Just to put my mind at ease can you tell me what you base this on?COMMON SENSE! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
docspiderman 1,220 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 FIFA have allegedly told them to hit us with a sanction equal to or more severe so they can easily suspend us or worse.The 3rd word is the important one and should be substituted for "in the warped delusional minds of some". The idea that FIFA has intervened or has been able or willing to do so is ludicrous given their laboriously slow mechanism and their policy regarding domestic issues. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 found this, it's worth a readMy linkLol - McConville is such a great solicitor he's been struck off. He's a complete fud.And in any event, the link doesn't answer the matter in point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Show me where the Appellate Tribunal have the explicit power to "find a suitable alternative". Obviously Lord Glennie has deemed they have such a power since he has returned it to them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Obviously Lord Glennie has deemed they have such a power since he has returned it to them.He has done nothing of the sort - read his decision. He has referred it back to the AT and they now need to act within their powers as provided for in the JJP.The wider question of what their powers are was not before Lord Glennie - merely whether the registration embargo was outwith those powers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalfollower 1,543 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Lord Glennie in the Court of Session disagrees with you. He stated that we were entitled to go to court. (He would have thrown out our case otherwise.)Aye he does. But fifa doesnt. Wether they are bunch of corrupt big wigs or not they will have the last say. Unless ofcourse this is the beginning of the end of fifa?? Alot of clubs could follow on? Get thrown out make a new organisation thats fair? So many opinions/questions at the moment Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Aye he does. But fifa doesnt. Wether they are bunch of corrupt big wigs or not they will have the last say. Unless ofcourse this is the beginning of the end of fifa?? Alot of clubs could follow on? Get thrown out make a new organisation thats fair? So many opinions/questions at the momentCourt of Session trumps FIFA every day of the week. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 He has done nothing of the sort - read his decision. He has referred it back to the AT and they now need to act within their powers as provided for in the JJP.The wider question of what their powers are was not before Lord Glennie - merely whether the registration embargo was outwith those powers.If they had no authority to 'replace' the penalty then why has he referred it back to them? So they could now tell us there was nothing else they could do beyond the existing fines? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalfollower 1,543 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 With us being a member of an association,breaking the rules whatever they maybe can result in a suspension. As has been pointed out. Its in rule book and lord glennie told the panel to pick a punishment from the book. S.f.a wont get away with fining us again. They'll either have to wreck spl or risk the other teams being kicked out of europe and w.c qualifiers. Has any team taken fifa to court and actually won? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated 10 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 D&P have been foolish taking this to court. We could have coped with a transfer embargo, but any of the other options are potentially fatal to the club, with the exception of the Scottish Cup ban. I hope it's a very short suspension that comes our way - 3 months maybe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 If they had no authority to 'replace' the penalty then why has he referred it back to them? So they could now tell us there was nothing else they could do beyond the existing fines?That was not a question before Lord Glennie. It is for the 'independent' Appellate Tribunal to consider what they now do, within the powers given to them by the JPP. One legitimate option could indeed be to throw out the registration embargo and leave only the fine. It is not for you, me, Lord Glennie, Regan or anyone else to tell the AT what to do now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Court of Session trumps FIFA every day of the week.Would that be like the Swiss court trumps FIFA? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Would that be like the Swiss court trumps FIFA?Yes, it does. Sion's problem (I assume you are referring to them) was that they ultimately agreed to take it to CAS, and lost. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Yes, it does. Sion's problem (I assume you are referring to them) was that they ultimately agreed to take it to CAS, and lost.Even before that. Several judgements were made. FIFA didn't suddenly buckle. Although I don't actually think FIFA give a flying one on this. Selling papers to idiots is easy done with sensationalist headlines. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBillyLives 27 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 dont think we'd get suspended for a season. Maybe 1st round of fixtures with every match vs us in that period a 3-0 loss for us. Then we join in on zero about 20 pts from top? As you say if its fora year then they'd need to promote a 2nd teamup each league so the numbers stay the same. I think for a 9 month period of lies from an owner they never tested to be hammered the way we have been is grossly unfair,we cant go to c.a.s and if we go to the c.o.s then fifa step in!!! Talk about being bullied into submission.Can't see that happening as this would involve home and away games. Those who had a home game against us would complain about the others getting points they wouldn't otherwise get. To be honest I can't see what difference it would make because we'd beat them anyway whereever we played them. But you know the way their disturbed minds work. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingBillyLives 27 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Meh ... It'll be suspension fae the Scottish cup. Don't see expulsion or suspension from the league as they've ruled those punishments are too severe. They'd look like Hypocrits if they change their ruling now. Expulsion would be the beginning of the end of Scottish football. Which tv company's gonna pay good money to watch septic win every league title forever. Rangers an septic are the only teams who make the league competitive. imoOnly because the SPL gave them a tainted title. Bastards aren't fit to lick our boots otherwise. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweetheart 8,458 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Lol - McConville is such a great solicitor he's been struck off. He's a complete fud.And in any event, the link doesn't answer the matter in point.Duly noted, I don't know anything about the guy. The article doesn't mention a specific rule or procedure that allows the AT to change one decision for another, but the article does point out that the AT only has four sanctions they can use, the legal guy seems to be referring to JPP Annex A, nowhere in that document does it say one sanction can be exchanged for another. He also points out that three of the sanctions have been deemed by the AT to be too harsh, which leaves us with with a fine which has already been done. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
corkinator 611 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 They haven't. The sanction they placed wus unlawful so they have to find a suitable alternative. i.e If I was convicted of Murder and was given the death penalty it would have to be commuted to an appropriate sentence as the original isn't suitable.Yeah it like hanging someone who robbed a bank. Mmmmmmmmm interesting analogy. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
boss 1,941 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Duly noted, I don't know anything about the guy. The article doesn't mention a specific rule or procedure that allows the AT to change one decision for another, but the article does point out that the AT only has four sanctions they can use, the legal guy seems to be referring to JPP Annex A, nowhere in that document does it say one sanction can be exchanged for another. He also points out that three of the sanctions have been deemed by the AT to be too harsh, which leaves us with with a fine which has already been done.Agreed.The JPP actually mentions 5 sanctions (what did I say about McConville being a crap, stuck-off solicitor?)1. Fine2. Suspension3. Expulsion from participation in the game4. Ejection from the Scottish Cup5. Termination of membership(On a separate point, I don't see "suspension" defined. Suspension from what? Voting, playing, membership? Interesting...) 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.