wunfellaff Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Let me get this straight. The transfer ban was overturned because that punishment wasn't one of the sanctions listed in the SFA's rule book. However, the rule books do state that Rangers cannot go to a court of law to challenge an SFA decision. Can the SFA therefore not go to court to get the courts decision overturned on the basis that Rangers should not have gone to court in the first place? The transfer ban was not overturned....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) FIFA Article 64 para 3 is the Rosetta Stone on this. FIFA / UEFA don't want football clubs reverting to Civil Courts. They should be going to CAS for appeals. i think if this is ever properly tested it will fall in a similar manner to the bosman ruling. private organisations like fifa shouldn't be able to supercede civil rights. also after close scrutiny of the contador and pistorious verdicts i have very little faith in cas. Edited May 30, 2012 by T_S_A_R 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Our Parliament could help here by passing an act making it 'beneath the dignity of the Court of Session to intervene in appeals against decisions by football authorities' Betting disputes are treated as such so why not do that, FIFA and UEFA would be cool with it too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelhumper Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Stewart Gilmour I salute you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingrodent Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 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. Wow, that sounds like a travesty. I guess it would've been a real blockheaded, thick-as-crappy-jam move for any club to have voluntarily agreed to be bound by this process and to sign off on the panel members, wouldn't it? Maybe Rangers could shed some light on why a club would willingly consent to this travesty of justice of its own free will, after they're done pretending to be victims and chucking their toys out of the pram. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 i think if this is ever properly tested it will fall in a similar manner to the bosman ruling. private organisations like fifa shouldn't be able to supercede civil rights. also after close scrutiny of the contador and pistorious verdicts i have very little faith in cas. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsafe Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Sure it was mentioned earlier. Rangers could have written to the SFA saying they didn't accept the decision and request the SFA to refer it to CAS. Edited May 30, 2012 by keepitsafe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Wow, that sounds like a travesty. I guess it would've been a real blockheaded, thick-as-crappy-jam move for any club to have voluntarily agreed to be bound by this process and to sign off on the panel members, wouldn't it? Maybe Rangers could shed some light on why a club would willingly consent to this travesty of justice of its own free will, after they're done pretending to be victims and chucking their toys out of the pram. Unfortunately, you comment is not relevant to the fact that the SFA disciplinary process does not conform to Fifa's rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceblink Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Typical old firm reaction on RM regarding Stewart Gilmour - wonder what team he supports..... .Erm that would be St Mirren, cunto 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killingfloorman Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 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. Bollox. It was Rangers' cheating that forced the issue, not the SFA's incompetence. Why don't you try apologising instead of deflecting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 everyone has the right to go to court. no one can take that away from you. Incorrect, you need a case to go to court, then you need the money. Don't be naive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 He will hate Rangers with an absolute passion. His mates will all hate Rangers with a passion. Unlike Lawwell, Reid & Co at Celtic Park who are desperate to keep Rangers alive. Are you sure about that? I can think of at least one of his mates that was a Rangers supporter but now chooses to sponsor and follow St Mirren...He told me an interesting story about Gilmour in the directors box and an incident with a guest of celtic. All the gory details and blood flowing everywhere..always had a lot of time for Gilmour after that 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 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. So if your thesis is correct, we can expect Besiktas and Bursaspor to be taking UEFA to EU Courts after they were both given 1 year Euro bans today for 'financial impropriety' ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=221601 What a bunch of fucking idiots. What exactly did Stewart Gilmour have to do with the Duncan Ferguson situation? He wasn't even Chairman of SMFC for another 3 years after the said incident. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Incorrect, you need a case to go to court, then you need the money. Don't be naive. what a stupid comment. it's like saying people aren't entitled to use the nhs because they are healthy. and i take it you have never heard of pro bono, legal aid or no win, no fee. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So if your thesis is correct, we can expect Besiktas and Bursaspor to be taking UEFA to EU Courts after they were both given 1 year Euro bans today for 'financial impropriety' ? That would be a little bit tricky for them considering that Turkey is not in the EU. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 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. If your team and their legal eagles keep shouting victim when they are the culprit here and keep appealing every sanction/punishment by throwing the dummy out the pram till they get a slap on the wrist ! then FIFA will intervene and tell the SFA to deal with your club and severely at that to deter other goldfish bowl league sharks that FIFA has the power to ban national and European competitions for Scotland and then the SFA have no choice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 So if your thesis is correct, we can expect Besiktas and Bursaspor to be taking UEFA to EU Courts after they were both given 1 year Euro bans today for 'financial impropriety' ? is turkey in the EU? this thread is choc a bloc with remedials. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 WRONG All very nice but what yir man here forgets to point out is that the CoS simply said - you can't do that to them it's not in your rulebook, I am handing it back to the SFA to pick another punishment. So now the court basically said punish them - but make sure it is in your rules so we are not bother by these cheating cretins again ... !! You will be punished on the original charges - nothing new . Now stop trying to wind the forum up with nonsense. 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 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. You totally made that up, stop posting like you know something. Back at you independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association it IS independant, who appoints it matters not a jot 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.