From an SPL club board member

[boss 1,941]

Here you go. I can't make it any clearer for you. Lord Glennie DID NOT rule on the powers; he merely stated that Rangers would not necessarily escape a lighter punishment, and that was not a question before him.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html

"I need not mention the other matters to which they refer. I simply refer to that passage to suggest that Mr O'Neill's argument that on the construction which I prefer the tribunal's powers are either insufficient or excessive is not necessarily correct; and to point out that 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 court."

[theiconicman 3,013]

I guess the way round this for the SFA would be to (try to) take, say, 50 points off us for last season. We'd finish last and be demoted to SFL1. Would get round the Dunfermline/Dundee question also - Dunfermline would be saved and Dundee wouldn't have any case for promotion.

We fulfilled all our fixtures and newco'd after the season ended. I'd struggle to see how they could legitimate apply a retrospective penalty of points deduction and where in their rules this would come from.

This isn't difficult. Apply the rules as they existed. If this lets us 'off' easier than they think we should be, then tough. Improve your rules going forward.

It's that simple.

[ray 105]

You're quoting YOUR OWN post.

Try reading and quoting Lord Glennie's judgement. He DID NOT rule on whether a suspension etc. would be within the Appellate Tribunal's powers. He really didn't. It was not a question before him.

No one said he did, he ruled the embargo was not within their remit, the post my post is a quote from the herald.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lord%20glennie%20at%20the%20court%20of%20session%20on%20tuesday%20accepted%20a%20petition%20from%20rangers%20for%20a%20judicial%20review%20as%20he%20ruled%20the%20sfa%20could%20only%20administer%20the%20punishments%20stated%20in%20the%20rule%20relating%20to%20the%20disrepute%20charge.&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldscotland.com%2Fmobile%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fsfa-tribunal-will-play-rangers-case-by-rule-book.17757933&ei=qxHfT5mPHcm38gOp-v2MCw&usg=AFQjCNEjHpN1V-kdTFE5BTTh0lTpWVJbgg

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=opinion%20of%20lord%20glennie%20in%20petition%20of%20rangers%20football%20club%20plc&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldscotland.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fglennie%2520report.pdf&ei=_hLfT8WDKoyn8gPRzK2pCw&usg=AFQjCNFUXAoPLnRJPYQUUF_8esrZOKOgRA

[MrT 173]

You're quoting YOUR OWN post.

Try reading and quoting Lord Glennie's judgement. He DID NOT rule on whether a suspension etc. would be within the Appellate Tribunal's powers. He really didn't. It was not a question before him.

It's like liking your own facebook status..... it's just gay!

[boss 1,941]

We fulfilled all our fixtures and newco'd after the season ended. I'd struggle to see how they could legitimate apply a retrospective penalty of points deduction and where in their rules this would come from.

This isn't difficult. Apply the rules as they existed. If this lets us 'off' easier than they think we should be, then tough. Improve your rules going forward.

It's that simple.

In a negotiated agreement, the SFA would be able to deduct us 50 points which we then wouldn't challenge in court. That's why I'm saying a route to SFL1 may be possible if that's what the parties want to achieve.

[Gaffbear 4,106]

Fuck the lot of them.i would rather apply to the league of Ireland than these pricks .

[AlanDeavy10 3]

No matter what our sanctions are i will be renewing my season ticket. But i will be extremely dissapointed if our club accepts to drop to division 1 to suit these bastards agenda of getting us out and holding onto the SKY deal. They have been trying to screw us over big time and now they want us to help them find a middle ground in all of this so they are not FUCKED!!! Its our turn to put the boot in Division 3 if we are not allowed to keep our SPL place.

[theiconicman 3,013]

In a negotiated agreement, the SFA would be able to deduct us 50 points which we then wouldn't challenge in court. That's why I'm saying a route to SFL1 may be possible if that's what the parties want to achieve.

Why should we agree to this?

People accept the charge of bringing the game into disrepute, which was the whole opening for this calculated attempt to inflict irreparable damage to our club.

I don't see why poor business ethics is bringing the game into disrepute. I really don't. The game is football, and our conduct on the pitch was no better or worse than many others.

If we must bend over and accept this charge of 'bringing the game into disrepute' so that our enemies can fuck us over, then we damn well hold them to the letter of the law for it. No negotiations, they created this mess over their haste and hatred to harm us, now let them deal with it.

EDIT: And the fact our players took voluntary wage cuts to ensure no job losses and that the team could fulfil the fixture list I would say honours the game and our commitment to it.

[boss 1,941]

Why should we agree to this?

People accept the charge of bringing the game into disrepute, which was the whole opening for this calculated attempt to inflict irreparable damage to our club.

I don't see why poor business ethics is bringing the game into disrepute. I really don't. The game is football, and our conduct on the pitch was no better or worse than many others.

If we must bend over and accept this charge of 'bringing the game into disrepute' so that our enemies can fuck us over, then we damn well hold them to the letter of the law for it. No negotiations, they created this mess over their haste and hatred to harm us, now let them deal with it.

I'm not for a second saying that we should or will accept this. I'm merely pointing out that such a mechanism is there for SPL1 not to be ruled out in a negotiated settlement.

[theiconicman 3,013]

I'm not for a second saying that we should or will accept this. I'm merely pointing out that such a mechanism is there for SPL1 not to be ruled out in a negotiated settlement.

I sincerely hope our club does not whore itself through negotiations to the SPL for the sake of money.

We are either completely vindicated and we carry on as we were, with all punishments served and accepted or if there is a feeling we don't deserve to remain in the SPL, we move to the 3rd division and build from there.

Our honour is one of the last things we still have as a club, Whyte besmirched and destroyed much.

[boss 1,941]

No one said he did

No-one apart from you?

They can suspend us or remove our sfa membership completely. Saying they can't doesn't make it any less true

The CoS sitting Lord Glennie made it quite clear

Now the tribunal, under Lord Carloway, must choose from a range of specified punishments: a fine of £100,000, suspension from the Scottish Cup or suspension or termination of the club's SFA membership.

See when you say something, then are shown to be wrong, it's rather disingenuous to claim you didn't say the thing in the first place.

[ray 105]

No-one apart from you?

See when you say something, then are shown to be wrong, it's rather disingenuous to claim you didn't say the thing in the first place.

You will have to point out which part of the below is wrong.

"They can suspend us or remove our sfa membership completely".

specified punishments: a fine of £100,000, suspension from the Scottish Cup or suspension or termination of the club's SFA membership.

[HHB 63]

My own view is that we have served our punishment for administration which was the loss of ten points.

These other 'punishments' are all bullshit and motivated by hatred and vindictiveness. We are being 'punished' where other clubs who went into Administration - such as Motherwell - were not.

[boss 1,941]

You will have to point out which part of the below is wrong.

"They can suspend us or remove our sfa membership completely".

specified punishments: a fine of £100,000, suspension from the Scottish Cup or suspension or termination of the club's SFA membership.

Lol, try and turn it into a different argument.

Look, you said that Lord Glennie's judgement stated they could suspend us. I pointed out that it did not. You restated that it did and quoted a newspaper article that you had also quoted previously. I then quoted his judgement that made it clear he did not make any ruling to the effect that they could suspend us.

Live with it and get it right next time.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

You will have to point out which part of the below is wrong.

"They can suspend us or remove our sfa membership completely".

specified punishments: a fine of £100,000, suspension from the Scottish Cup or suspension or termination of the club's SFA membership.

Just noticed Ray.leggo he of the alleged relaxation trips to Thailand (what you like for starter..........sweet yungcum made a comment regarding Clint Eastwood the other day and your pic on here 2+2+= ?

[Redmond7 1,205]

It's all about self preservation and corruption with which Scottish football is riddled. It should really be a straight choice and an easy choice at that - you allow the newco into the SPL with no sanctions attached because you cannot apply sanctions which did not exist until you made them up OR you expel the newco and make them apply to the bottom of the pile which if we're being totally honest is the way it should be. But the corrupt ones running the game know that they will lose a large portion of their gravy train if they lose Rangers and the SKY deal so they are doing their best to come up with whatever stupid and trumped up shite they can to make sure Rangers suffer whilst they still grab for everything they can.

The celtc comments sum up the whole thing, they will vote no as long as enough other clubs vote yes so they can keep their tv deal, yet if Rangers go to SFL 1, they will be the biggest losers in this whole pathetic scenario. I only hope those who are now running our great club have the balls to tell the rest of these scummy wankers where to go.

[ray 105]

Lol, try and turn it into a different argument.

Look, you said that Lord Glennie's judgement stated they could suspend us. I pointed out that it did not. You restated that it did and quoted a newspaper article that you had also quoted previously. I then quoted his judgement that made it clear he did not make any ruling to the effect that they could suspend us.

Live with it and get it right next time.

You are certainly confused nowhere did I state that Lord Glennie made any specific view as to a sanction, only that he stated the embargo was not enforceable, and that Lord Carloway would have to use the available sanctions, it's not hard to understand really, after all Lord Glennie made it crystal clear.

[23] I should only add this. Mr O'Neill's argument that the construction of the Articles and the Protocol at which I have arrived deprives the Tribunal of the power to impose a penalty which is both effective and proportionate, is not necessarily shared by the Appellate Tribunal. They concluded their reasons by saying this:

"Although the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal that termination, suspension of membership would have been excessive, it made that assessment in the context of the availability of competent lesser sanctions such as the one actually imposed. Were that option not to have been available, suspension might have had to be considered appropriate for such serious misconduct, which has brought the game into disrepute."

I need not mention the other matters to which they refer. I simply refer to that passage to suggest that Mr O'Neill's argument that on the construction which I prefer the tribunal's powers are either insufficient or excessive is not necessarily correct; and to point out that 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 court.

[24] I propose to reduce the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and I shall formally remit the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration in light of this Opinion.

[boss 1,941]

You are certainly confused nowhere did I state that Lord Glennie made any specific view as to a sanction

Lol, I'll leave you to justify your error. I'm out.

[Chef 436]

You are certainly confused nowhere did I state that Lord Glennie made any specific view as to a sanction, only that he stated the embargo was not enforceable, and that Lord Carloway would have to use the available sanctions, it's not hard to understand really, after all Lord Glennie made it crystal clear.

[23] I should only add this. Mr O'Neill's argument that the construction of the Articles and the Protocol at which I have arrived deprives the Tribunal of the power to impose a penalty which is both effective and proportionate, is not necessarily shared by the Appellate Tribunal. They concluded their reasons by saying this:

"Although the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal that termination, suspension of membership would have been excessive, it made that assessment in the context of the availability of competent lesser sanctions such as the one actually imposed. Were that option not to have been available, suspension might have had to be considered appropriate for such serious misconduct, which has brought the game into disrepute."

I need not mention the other matters to which they refer. I simply refer to that passage to suggest that Mr O'Neill's argument that on the construction which I prefer the tribunal's powers are either insufficient or excessive is not necessarily correct; and to point out that 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 court.

[24] I propose to reduce the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and I shall formally remit the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for reconsideration in light of this Opinion.

Fekk me that's some post count ray for what little u been on here.

[ray 105]

Just noticed Ray.leggo he of the alleged relaxation trips to Thailand (what you like for starter..........sweet yungcum made a comment regarding Clint Eastwood the other day and your pic on here 2+2+= ?

In my younger days I was known to get pished with leggo and several other press swally merchants in the Queens Club or Sammy's halcyon days indeed, fitba' was so much simpler then pished fitba' pished and not neccessarily in that order. :lol:

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

In my younger days I was known to get pished with leggo and several other press swally merchants in the Queens Club or Sammy's halcyon days indeed, fitba' was so much simpler then pished fitba' pished and not neccessarily in that order. :lol:

Not a problem Davey......oops!!

[ray 105]

Fekk me that's some post count ray for what little u been on here.

Knowledge is the food of life and I am always open to learning, that along with an irritating hernia which makes mobility a problem makes me thankful for the modern contraptions such as computers and phone a chicken jalfresi, although the chicken can take its time answering.

[ray 105]

Lol, I'll leave you to justify your error. I'm out.

Truth and accuracy need no justification.

[Chef 436]

Knowledge is the food of life and I am always open to learning, that along with an irritating hernia which makes mobility a problem makes me thankful for the modern contraptions such as computers and phone a chicken jalfresi, although the chicken can take its time answering.

Yes and your posts are certainly informative, keep em Rollin

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

In my younger days I was known to get pished with leggo and several other press swally merchants in the Queens Club or Sammy's halcyon days indeed, fitba' was so much simpler then pished fitba' pished and not neccessarily in that order. :lol:

Forgot to add had a few pints in the Queens club many a day ago.