Paquis

The photos are not very good to be fair. Maybe this is more telling: the official SPL attendances from last season: just for information: Attendance (Average) Team Average Attendance and v Rangers Celtic 50904 58.658 & 58546 Rangers 46324 Hearts 13381 15.495 & 14.842 Hibernian 9909 11.380 Aberdeen 9297 15.468 Dundee Utd 7482 10.156 & 9.464 Motherwell 5946 10.092 & 9.063 Kilmarnock 5537 9.506 Dunfermline 4799 7.577 & 7.464 St Mirren 4493 6.711 St Johnstone 4170 6.459, 6.577 & 6.459 Inverness CT 4023 6.623 & 6.416 "In the event that Rangers had to apply for admission to the third division, the withdrawal of the current TV deals would put three clubs - St Mirren, Kilmarnock and Motherwell - in immediate peril, with Dundee United also vulnerable. The St Mirren chairman, Stewart Gilmour, on Mnight told a meeting of the club's shareholders and season-ticket holders that if the SPL TV contracts are annulled the Paisley side would probably be the next to suffer insolvency. "In that circumstance there is every likelihood that St Mirren will be administration by the end of September," he said"

The SFA have told clubs at today's meeting that Rangers must go into the first division at all costs. They were told that if Rangers have to go to division 3 there will be a football armageddon in Scottish football. Regan said Rangers will not go into the SPL but must go into division 1 or there will be a 18 million black hole that Scottish football will not recover from. He said that if they think that they wont be effected they are living on a different planet. Sky have told the SFA that they will put up with Rangers out the SPL for 1 year but no more than that. As a incentive they will pay the SFL clubs 1 million pounds split between the 3 leagues and some Rangers games will be televised. When it comes to 'sporting integrity' (no sniggering at the back there) versus financial survival there is no contest. Supporters of non-SPL clubs should consider that the other SPL clubs are trying to make the SFL bail them out of a hole that, in many ways, they have dug for themselves. Meanwhile, a survey of Rangers supporters (validated by Rangers number) and carried out by the RFFF found that around 75% of Rangers fans were favourable to Rangers starting again from Div. 3. Frankly, we don't care if a few SPL clubs go to the wall as a result. In fact, we will enjoy contributing to the P&B threads on their administration and the discussion of the most suitable punishments for the financial doping that got them there..

So this 'senior source' knows exactly how 11 votes are going to go? Did this he used to work for Robert Mugabe?

They have probably had a call from their bank managers

Grow up

However there is also the largely defunct term of associate member. It has occasionally been applied to states which have signed an association agreement with the EU. Associate membership is not a formal classification and does not entitle the state to any of the representation of free movement rights that full membership allows. The term is almost unheard of in the modern context and was primarily used in the earlier days of the EU with countries such as Greece and Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_State_of_the_European_Union#Related_states

I suppose that is one way to improve your general knowledge

Oh no it isn't

The question was whether Rangers would be punished for going to court not whether they would be punished on the original charges. Do try to keep up.

That would be a little bit tricky for them considering that Turkey is not in the EU.

Unfortunately, you comment is not relevant to the fact that the SFA disciplinary process does not conform to Fifa's rules.

This is another reason why Fifa will steer clear and prefer to tell the SFA, in private, to get it sorted. Every time Fifa has gone up against EU law they have ended up getting screwed. The EU does not share Fifa's view that they should be above the law.

Yes. The SFA disciplinary process does not conform to the FIFA rules for such matters. As such, it left Rangers with no other possible avenue for appeal. This was noted by Lord Glennie himself when rejecting the SFA's argument that he was not competent to hear the case. Specifically ... Article 64.3 of the Fifa statutes reads “disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association or confederation or to CAS”. The SFA chose to make their Judicial Panel the body which hears such disputes and not CAS, which is entirely legitimate under Fifa rules. The problem is that the SFA Judicial panel is neither 'independent' (because it is appointed by the SFA) nor is it a 'duly constituted arbitration tribunal'. That said, it would be entirely consistent of the SFA to try to punish Rangers for going to court when it was their own failing that provoked it.

Just a shame he didn't remove his foot from his mouth before speaking.

I suspect that FIFA may be telling the SFA to make their rules conform to FIFA rules and don't let it happen again.

We are here. Just waiting for someone to post something/anything remotely interesting and worthy of comment.

You know you are in trouble when even Bill Leckie lays into you ...... http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345747/SFA-cant-put-up-fight-or-defend-themselves.html#ixzz1wIxOQTTM There was a time when the SFA got stick for dragging their feet when it came to big decisions. Remember when wee Berti Vogts was making us a laughing stock and somehow it took them nine months after a 4-0 humping in Cardiff to bin him? It was this kind of shilly-shallying that finally brought about an end to the old-school committee system and saw Regan airlifted in to modernise the whole shooting match. His vow was that from that day on, they WOULD make the decisions that had to be made. And he’s been as good as his word. Only trouble is, it seems they’re now making decisions SO fast they don’t think them through long enough to make them stick. They took on the referees, forced them into a strike and are now losing good men hand over fist. They took on Celtic over Lennon and the late McBride nutmegged them with a beach-ball in a phone box. The Parkhead lawyer left them without a name, declaring that their bid to ban Lennon for eight games was a non-starter because “anyone who can read could see what the rules were”. He told the Hampden mandarins to “grow up and start acting responsibly” and labelled them “institutionally dysfunctional”. His words rings as true today as they did last April. Because now they’ve taken on Rangers. And it’s cringe-makingly obvious that they didn’t brief the independent panel appointed to investigate the Whyte fiasco on what sanctions they could impose.

Well, it has happened before. Most recently when Celtic threatened them with court action over Lennon's suspension. Yep, they backed down. And I remember Craig Levein threatening court action when he was Hearts manager. They backed down on that one too. Didn't do Levein any harm either. So what makes you think that the SFA have grown a set in the meantime?

Don't forget to take your blood pressure meds tonight

Generally, the police act a bit quicker than the SFA when they are confronted with evidence.

The SFA have dug a bit of a hole for themselves here. On the one hand, they wanted to hand out a sufficient punishment for Rangers that would keep most people happy that they were doing 'something'. On the other hand, they did not want to take the commercial risk (TV money, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc.) of actually losing Rangers to Scottish football. Interestingly, while quite a lot of Rangers fans like the idea of starting again in the 3rd division, the SPL seem hellbent on keeping us in the top division. And you can be sure they are not doing that out of the kindness of their hearts. By winning in court, Rangers have put the SFA in a difficult position; caught between a punishment that some see as too lenient and others as too harsh. Probably the best 'out' is to suspend all punishment and get the parties to agree to go to the CAS which, as we know, can take a couple of years to rule. By which time, emotions have cooled.

You may be right. Of course, there is all kinds of cheating so lets not stop here. It could be failure to pay wages or it could be a manager of club 1 (lets say Aston Villa) signing a player from a club 2 (lets say Celtic) for an inflated fee when he has a financial interest in club 2. All hypothetical of course. But if we are serious about stopping cheating then lets have a root and branch clean-out.

So what is the role of the SFA? Why have 'fit and proper' rules at all? The people mentioned did carry out their duty. They resigned and made public the reasons for it. Rangers, like many Scots clubs, were owned by a single individual. That person, in any business, has absolute power. If the SFA or UEFA/FIFA want to impose any kind of financial fair-play rules then they need to take their regulatory role a lot more seriously. My comment also needs to be seen in terms of the reasoning behind the SFA punishment. Apparently, the directors 'should have know'. I was merely pointing out that they did know and made that fact public. The SFA chose not to act on it until much later.

I'm not sure I know the answer to that one. At least this time, nobody can say they didn't know about the EBTs. Not the Rangers directors and not the SFA or the SPL. But, it begs the question. If everyone knew about them then who gets punished? Does the regulator (the SFA) have no liability?

You having vocabulary, spelling and grammar problems too?