Paquis

I think the punishment was far too severe. A couple of smaller fines would, perhaps, have been the right measure. Essentially, Rangers are paying for the failure of the SFA to do their job as regulator properly. The SFA intone that the directors 'must have known what was going on'. Well they did. John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre all resigned from the Rangers board in October of 2011 citing that the had been excluded from corporate governance by CW. Now, when your FD resigns then, to most regulators, that is a red flag. So what did the SFA do? Yep, you got it, SFA. Having failed, somebody had to pay. Yep, that somebody was Rangers. So why did Rangers get punished and not Motherwell. Both were in Administration and both had failed to pay the taxman amongst others. The only answer you ever get to that question is the amount owed. But rules are generally based on principles and are not quantitative.

You do realise that you are not allowed to bring facts into this discussion.

Factually incorrect. Motherwell didn't, Dundee didn't, Hearts have been late, etc. etc.

The EBTs are proven. Nobody has ever denied their existence and they were disclosed in Rangers annual reports. The questions are 1) should they be taxable ... and 2) do they constitute a second contract.

You mean other clubs haven't been paying on time Quick, punish them.

It is a logical conclusion if the CVA is knocked back. Rangers go Newco.

The investors will pay as little as they can get away with. That is business. And, if the creditors refuse, they will liquidate and pay out even less. That is just the way it works in real life. And any other team in the same position would probably do the same.

I assume the insults are because you don't really have a point Alternatively, you could be lacking in vocabulary

Then Rangers will liquidate and the taxman will get even less.

Yeah ... but that was different ..... err I think .... was it?

OJ was acquitted

It cannot be 'independent' if it is appointed by one of the parties in the case. It can only be independent if appointed by a third party which is not involved. The fact that the individuals were qualified or that Rangers had agreed to them is not relevant to the discussion of 'independence'.

How much is 'laughable'? Dundee offered 6p Motherwell offered 20p

I hope it wasn't an art exam.

UEFA will stay well clear IMHO. The last thing they want is to get embroiled in a case that might spill into arguments over EU employment law (free movement of labour and all that). Uefa has shelved proposals to impose a transfer ban on clubs that breach its financial fair-play rules amid concerns that its planned penalties will be legally unenforceable, or face challenges from individual players. Lawyers have advised that Uefa could be open to restraint-of-trade suits from players excluded from the competition. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/european/8908065/Uefa-shelves-proposals-to-impose-a-transfer-ban-on-clubs-that-breach-its-financial-fair-play-rules.html

If you 'appoint' a panel then, by definition, it cannot be independent.

No. Sion was granted a temporary injunction by a court in Valais that they could field the players. The Swiss FA respected that injunction until it was overturned by a higher court. It was FIFA that demanded that the Swiss FA punish Sion, not UEFA. However, the points deduction was for fielding ineligible players and not for taking FIFA/UEFA/Swiss FA to court. The points deduction only happened after Sion had lost both in Swiss court (Vaud and Valais) and at the CAS (which Swiss jurisprudence recognises as being competent).

That has not been proven as yet.

Hope you fixed the typo

Sion was punished by the Swiss FA for fielding ineligible players (not for going to the courts) and only after they had actually lost in court (Tribunal Cantonal de Valais) and lost at the CAS.

Nope ... no action from FIFA IMHO. Partly because their remedy is the CAS and SFA rules do not allow for that. But, mainly, because they don't want to tangle with EU laws. Every time they have tried that in the past they got screwed (e.g. Bosman). My guess is that they will tell the SFA to give Rangers a punishment that can stand up in court and leave it at that. Then it is up to the SFA to find a middle ground that manages to piss everyone off for a while but which won't actually mean too much .... like exclusion from the Scottish cup for a year.

The Sion situation was quite different and Sion was never punished for going to the courts.

Borrowed from another forum ........ *Phone rings* Sepp Blatter: Hello? Stewart Regan: Hello Sepp, it's Stewart Regan here Blatter: Who? Regan: Umm, Stewart Regan Blatter: I don't want cheaper car insurance Regan: No.. I'm umm, in charge of the Scottish Football Association Blatter: Where? Regan: Scotland... uhh, we are just a bit North of England Blatter: Oh, I can't stand them, what do you want? Regan: Well, it's this thing about Rangers Blatter: Ah, Rangers, good club, Champions League, Europa League final, yes? I know them very well Regan: Well, uhh, they broke some rule and we tried to punish them, and they ran away to the courts to change it Blatter: But, this is disgraceful, they signed up to your rules, and must abide by the punishments they signed up to, we will hammer them Regan: Ah, but umm, this punishment wasn't actually in the rules Blatter: O...k... so, there were no other punishments? Regan: Well, yes, but they would have affected my sponsorship money and stuff, and we fined them the most we could, even though they are in administration and don't have any money, because this guy took them over and he was a bad, bad guy. Blatter: He must have been clever, to pass through your strict rules on people who can run clubs Regan: Ah, well, yes, umm, I mean he said he was ok Blatter: And your checks? Regan: Well, we didn't do any Blatter: You are a complete moron aren't you? Regan: But, but, but Peter says..... Phone slammed down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Glennie,_Lord_Glennie

Clubs forced into Administration through loss of revenue might. So far, they don't seem all that keen on even dropping Rangers from the SPL.