chrismcarab Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Firstly I doubt a mechanism exists to "not recognise the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration in Sport and refer the whole case to FIFA" (and what is "to FIFA": the world congress of 216 members?!?!). It's not Star Wars. Secondly... if SFA really didn't have transfer embargos permitted under their rules, and really didn't sufficiently permit appeals to CAS, then there's no certainty FIFA would wholly side with them IMO. I was meaning the Court of Session not CAS mate, sorry for any confusion, I was under the impression that the Court of Session could not effectively impose their ruling against the SFA? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 As I said, they might struggle to justify it, even if they did have the balls. If it's correct that it's been sent back to the appeals panel since they cannot uphold the transfer embargo part... then they can give them 'lesser' punishments (Scottish Cup etc.) or the 'bigger' punishment (expulsion). But the panels, in their previous judgements, have already said that expulsion was too harsh? Explusion too harsh but everything else too lenient. It works both ways. SFA have to either go too-harsh or too-lenient. Who's to say one is wrong and the other right? They're both wrong, but SFA have to do one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I'm no expert (Ad Lib?) but I understand the principle of Roman law in Scots civil proceedings. We will know more once Lord Glennie publishes his judgement in several week's time, but in Scotland, the judge has a role in considering the relative merits of each argument and coming to a decision based (broadly) on what he has heard. To me, I'd have expected Lord Carloway, on the SFA appeal panel, to have had this in mind. He's just received a bitch slap from Lord Glennie in that Glennie has decide that, in the absence of a specifically tough pre determined sanction, the SFA were wrong to opt for a halfway house. I'm a bit surprised since I had thought that he would have respected the rights of an Association to runs its affairs within its own rules as it saw fit. The SFA could appeal, but of course they won't because of their own FIFA rules that forbid taking footballing matters to court. Ho hum. I think the 'within its own rules' was the sticky bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutton34 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Contact FIFA: http://www.fifa.com/contact/form.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Pie and Bovril @pieandbovSFA QC also said today that a fine was "simply not enough given the gravity of the issues here". Real ball testing time for SFA panel now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnsfan Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Does this mean Mike McDonald will come back on board now? CAN SEE FAT SALLY COMING BACK IN WITH TRANSFER TARGETS TO USE UP MORE OF GREEN'S MONEY ? AND FURTHER SCREW UP THE CREDITORS. RANGERS - SCOTLANDS SHAME -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I'm no expert (Ad Lib?) but I understand the principle of Roman law in Scots civil proceedings. We will know more once Lord Glennie publishes his judgement in several week's time, but in Scotland, the judge has a role in considering the relative merits of each argument and coming to a decision based (broadly) on what he has heard. To me, I'd have expected Lord Carloway, on the SFA appeal panel, to have had this in mind. He's just received a bitch slap from Lord Glennie in that Glennie has decide that, in the absence of a specifically tough pre determined sanction, the SFA were wrong to opt for a halfway house. I'm a bit surprised since I had thought that he would have respected the rights of an Association to runs its affairs within its own rules as it saw fit. The SFA could appeal, but of course they won't because of their own FIFA rules that forbid taking footballing matters to court. Ho hum. There would be no fat legal fees involved if they did that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 havent read anyone saying the transfer embargo was actually overturned by this , only that this judge didnt think the sfa could issue one and then sent it back for appeal am i correct? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BinoBalls Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 This would be a great time for whoever is sitting on the Souness / extra payments 'nuclear' a story to show their hand. Maybe then the SFA can justify expulsion more easily. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I'm a bit surprised since I had thought that he would have respected the rights of an Association to runs its affairs within its own rules as it saw fit. . thats the point, the embargo was never in their rules, they effectively made up that punishment FIFA will likely stay out of this and privately scold the SFA for fucking this up, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 havent read anyone saying the transfer embargo was actually overturned by this , only that this judge didnt think the sfa could issue one and then sent it back for appeal am i correct? Don't believe so - the transfer ban was deemed outwith the SFA's identified options and sent back to have them consider one of the punishments more explicitly open to them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 havent read anyone saying the transfer embargo was actually overturned by this , only that this judge didnt think the sfa could issue one and then sent it back for appeal am i correct? It is effectively overturned. If the SFA decide to reimpose one, it just comes back to the CoS and we all pass Go and start again. The SFA have screwed this one up. They don't want to impose a harsher penalty because that will p!ss of the SPL and other chairmen who want the pay-day that Rangers represent. On the other hand, a lighter penalty is just admitting that they screwed up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 CAN SEE FAT SALLY COMING BACK IN WITH TRANSFER TARGETS TO USE UP MORE OF GREEN'S MONEY ? AND FURTHER SCREW UP THE CREDITORS. RANGERS - SCOTLANDS SHAME the CVA already has its money set aside, whatever mccoist does after that is irrelevant to the CVA -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Sergio Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossman4 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Apologies if this has been covered but why did Rangers not take this to the CAS as they should? Was it a case they were just plain thick or did the SFA not make them aware of this. I would imagine if FIFA are watching then Rangers are screwed and the ruling is worthless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Follow Follower's seem to think that the CVA hinges on R*ngers competing in all domestic competitions next season. Would that rule out a potential SC ban? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthBank Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The SFA can stick to their guns and simply ignore the verdict. Nothing Rangers can do about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Apologies if this has been covered but why did Rangers not take this to the CAS as they should? Was it a case they were just plain thick or did the SFA not make them aware of this. I would imagine if FIFA are watching then Rangers are screwed and the ruling is worthless. Apparently it wasnt an option in the SFA's rule book 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Apologies if this has been covered but why did Rangers not take this to the CAS as they should? Was it a case they were just plain thick or did the SFA not make them aware of this. I would imagine if FIFA are watching then Rangers are screwed and the ruling is worthless. It appears SFA screwed up. Their rules do not provide a route to CAS, but siggested the Appeals Tribunal decision was final and binding. Under such circumstances you could argue that Ranjurs had no option but to go to the Court of Session. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Brightside Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) 433 users reading this thread. Edited May 29, 2012 by Mr. Brightside 0 Quote Link to comment 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.