Gibby82 Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I've learnt two things from this mighty thread today. 1. No one, despite much speculation and conjecture, knows what the f**k is really going on. 2. T S A R is a Motherwell fan. WTF? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 My understanding is that the CoS can judge the punishment 'illegal', but have no powers to actually overturn the embargo as they have no direct powers to do so. The SFA could tell them and Rangers it stands and that's that. At least, that's what my interpretation of the ruling was. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReasonableGeezer Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 no they aren't! A bit like you being an "associate" Motherwell fan then - No you aren't! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpaddyx Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 (edited) Maybe i've drifted into the wrong thread but what does Turkey's membership or lack thereof got to do with Ranger's current situation? Edited May 30, 2012 by mrpaddyx 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnethead Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 no they aren't! Oh Yes They are Sorry, couldn't resist 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Leaving all emotion out of it, the SPL and SFA are fast running out of reasons and avenues to treat rangers leniently 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/18269245?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter priceless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Is that a new contract with Rangers, or a contract with New Rangers? Doesn't mean its a contract as a player , bogs need scrubbed daily 'til the Hoose finally closes......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 the guy has a point though, its like allowing the victim to choose the judge in a court case an appeal panel should be the form of a neutral panel that is agreed by both parties, Eh, no. By agreeing to the way the Judicial Panel was to be chosen when they signed up to the new rules a year ago, then Fat Sally demanding transparency, followed by his comments that he was happy with the panel members being named in advance for the Appeal Panel hearing, Rangers and their manager have shown clearly that they were happy to accept this form of Judicial review. What they also have shown and continue to show with the CoS case is that they are only happy to accept the result if falls in their favour. BIG difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Nothing personal m8, but most who have joined in the past 4 weeks, OF fans that is, have an agenda which is basically crap, there are exceptions, but you ain't one of them. HellBhouy ain't bad but even then .... I thank you for even the merest morsel to be even close to being an accepted member on P&B as an OF fan.Have a greeny sir. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browni Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 The SFA can just ignore the 'comments' made by the CoS and tell Rangers that the ban stays and they should STFU or else they get chucked out of the SFA. The CoS comments have no legal bearing in the circumstances. Again that would keep FIFA/EUFA happy, but do the SFA have the balls to do it? Before we go further into this, can we finally acknowledge that next season there is only 1 CL place up for grabs, ie Smelltic? Pretty sure you're right with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadSaint Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Rangers Media now calling for a St. Mirren boycott next season. Boycott St. Mirren LC FInal9 man skint Rangers 1 max strength St Mirren 0 He should of taken that to court because to lose that game was criminal !!!! Naisy that day. LOL Moron wants to join in and blows the whole weak joke out the water Yeah wasn't Naismith wonderful mate.......at £1.9Million he was more expensive than our entire 11 and was probably on close to their combined salary yet it's "skint Rangers" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GirondistNYC Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 1338405607[/url]' post='6288293']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. The problem with Bosman as an analogy is that as an individual he didn't really have an option as to what contract regime to play under if he wanted to play pro football. The rules at the time acted as a direct restraint on his economic liberty and ability to earn a living and were not rules he ever agreed to. The EU cares a great deal about both individual rights and freedom of contract. Thus Bosman. Rangers, on the other hand, are a sophisticated institution that signed up to these rules last year. They wouldn't be barred fom existing if the SFA chucked them and they could presumably in theory play glamour friendlies against Linfield and Schezuan 1690 FC to pay the bills, and if they went to the wall everyone involved could find work elsewhere. They're not dependent on others hiring them in the way Bosman was and they aren't exactly the sympathetic wee soul fighting against the wicked club and league. Also, they're being punished for something a little bit more serious than being kind crap and falling out with the manager. Bosman does not equal Rangers. FIFA and UEFA probably are terrified of challenges to the transfer system as a whole and the upcoming financial fair play rules, but that's an excellent reason to absolutely hammer Rangers now: since the COS took the transfer ban off the table, none of the stuff thy are worried about would be involved in Rangers case, and Rangers is a wonderfully unsympathetic (and cash poor) standard bearer or a general attack on the legality of federation and international boies governing football and discouraging recourse to civil law. And have fun trying to fund any serious legl challenge in your current state. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk. .._medium=twitter priceless Swap youze, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidthebaw Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 That would be a little bit tricky for them considering that Turkey is not in the EU. It's not unusual for cases to be heard out with the country where the law breach happend. One of the reasons London is a huge legal centre is the amount of libel cases out with the EU that take place there. The turkish clubs can take UEFA/FIFA to CaS. As regards the right to take a case to court, it a case of depends which court. e.g. small claims, civil and or criminal and if you are the accused or defendant. Sometimes your lawyer may even suggest you don't go to court because on the balance of probability you'll lose. So you do have the right, on theory but as in life it's not all black and whyte (see what I did there) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 the guy has a point though, its like allowing the victim to choose the judge in a court case The SFA were not the victim an appeal panel should be the form of a neutral panel that is agreed by both parties, Rangers (and everyone else) agreed to any disciplinary panel being drawn from a larger list 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Sorry if this has already been asked. But if the CVA fails, Green has a contractual right to buy the assets for 5.5m 1. How did that come about? If the CVA fails then dont the creditor get to pick over the carcass? 2. Green isn't buying the club is he? He's giving them a loan? Or is he buying it - what the f**k? I'm confused. Is he getting all the assets in return for arranging a loan while the creditors get a share of £0 3. How can D&P arrange a loan for rangers when they are in administration? Is that another breach by the dynamic duo? Some thing smells a little.....again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Swap youze, eh? We have a chairman willing to make a stand, and a total apologist for a manager. You have a manager willing to make a stand and a total apologist for a chairman. Go figure, eh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 Oh Yes They are Sorry, couldn't resist "OH YES THEY ARE AND NO THEY ISN'T" the oxymoron version to really put a spanner it there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 My understanding is that the CoS can judge the punishment 'illegal', but have no powers to actually overturn the embargo as they have no direct powers to do so. The SFA could tell them and Rangers it stands and that's that. At least, that's what my interpretation of the ruling was. Your understanding is wrong, I'm afraid. The Court of Session have found that the SFA's decision is ultra vires and therefore of no effect. If the SFA try to ignore it (which they won't, not least because they would be in contempt of court) then further court action will follow which the SFA will lose. The SFA's only option here is to accept the judgement or appeal against it, they can't just ignore it. 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.