Homer Thompson Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Perhaps what Dundee done & accept the punishment And Livingston. On another note, its scandalous that the lawyer who appeared on Newsnight the other day has felt the need to post this on his blog 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Very few have mentioned that Rangers were wronged by the SFA and the hand picked Law Lord!! As i mentioned earlier the ruling was so obviously against European employment law it had no way of standing up in a court of law even if we had lost the CoS action The SFA said only last year they could not defend any decisions they made if it wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Far from Rangers bowing down and just meekly letting the ruling stand the SFA should have given them a punishment within their own rule book instead of making it all up as they go along. I admire your optimism, as I've said before but look at the reality. The other Spl chairmen are linig up to stick the boot in, you know the ones who you think need Rangers to survive. My assessment, which you dismissed as akin to red top sensationalism, seems to be the general opinion in footballing circles and going to the CoS looks like it could be the final nail. Big thanks to the RFFF for letting it happen. Even Green is now pleading with the SFA because he's shltting it that the only option left is expulsion should have takken the lifeline of a light sanction imposed to keep yous alive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Very few have mentioned that Rangers were wronged by the SFA and the hand picked Law Lord!! As i mentioned earlier the ruling was so obviously against European employment law it had no way of standing up in a court of law even if we had lost the CoS action The SFA said only last year they could not defend any decisions they made if it wouldn't stand up in a court of law. Far from Rangers bowing down and just meekly letting the ruling stand the SFA should have given them a punishment within their own rule book instead of making it all up as they go along. It doesn't say you can't employ anyone, it just says you can't register them as players. The CoS didn't say that a transfer embargo was unlawful, per se, it was that it hadn't been specified in the list of possible penalties. Transfer embargoes are perfectly legitimate punishments, witness Sion's. Thye just ignored it, and the Swiss FA were told to sort them out for doing so. You could buy Messi, and use him to clean the toilets. FFS get that into your thick skull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Employment law?? Good one. The embargo didn't stop rangers signing players or paying them a wage. It would have stopped them registering the players to play. So employment law wouldn't come into it. The same way you could sign as many foreigners as you wanted but could only play 3 at any one time...That was against European Employment Law and was why it had to be changed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Who needs six degrees of separation Ally McCoist had an affair with Patsy Kensit who was married to Liam Gallagher who has a son called Lennon Walter Smith once shook the hand of a Celtic manager at the end of an OF game. Easy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It doesn't say you can't employ anyone, it just says you can't register them as players. The CoS didn't say that a transfer embargo was unlawful, per se, it was that it hadn't been specified in the list of possible penalties. Transfer embargoes are perfectly legitimate punishments, witness Sion's. Thye just ignored it, and the Swiss FA were told to sort them out for doing so. You could buy Messi, and use him to clean the toilets. FFS get that into your thick skull It was age discriminatory...Get that through your thick skull. You cannot discriminate in such a way under European Employment laws. Is it really that difficult to grasp? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WullieBroonIsGod Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It doesn't say you can't employ anyone, it just says you can't register them as players. The CoS didn't say that a transfer embargo was unlawful, per se, it was that it hadn't been specified in the list of possible penalties. Transfer embargoes are perfectly legitimate punishments, witness Sion's. Thye just ignored it, and the Swiss FA were told to sort them out for doing so. You could buy Messi, and use him to clean the toilets. FFS get that into your thick skull Might need to dust off some of those EBTs to pay the wee guys wages...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 are the SFA not meeting today? not seen a peep from the journo twitter mafia 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkboy Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 And Livingston. On another note, its scandalous that the lawyer who appeared on Newsnight the other day has felt the need to post this on his blog Sadly not very surprising though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The same way you could sign as many foreigners as you wanted but could only play 3 at any one time...That was against European Employment Law and was why it had to be changed That isnt the same thing at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 And Livingston. On another note, its scandalous that the lawyer who appeared on Newsnight the other day has felt the need to post this on his blog I suppose thats what happens when things are transparent 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humf Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 The same way you could sign as many foreigners as you wanted but could only play 3 at any one time...That was against European Employment Law and was why it had to be changed There's quite a big difference between not being allowed to register more players because you haven't paid for the ones you have and not playing someone because they are spanish etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkboy Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It was age discriminatory...Get that through your thick skull. You cannot discriminate in such a way under European Employment laws. Is it really that difficult to grasp? Find one lawyer who agrees with your barmy interpretation. That is not why the COS had a problem with the panels judgement. If the SFA added transfer embargos to their punishments for future infractions then it will be a perfectly acceptable punishment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Ehhhh They did fine Rangers £160,000 Amazing that hatred can blind so many people...Rangers were wronged...This ruling was nowhere near the middle ground. They made the ruling up and it was then rubber stamped by a law lord who has previous for making it up as he goes along in cases regarding Rangers. It was a massive own goal by the SFA and i hope FIFA absolutely hammer them for it...as long as that punishment is within the rule book FIFA might take action, after the extermination of Rangers. Another conspiracy theory, good fishing material I suppose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Ehhhh They did fine Rangers £160,000 Amazing that hatred can blind so many people...Rangers were wronged...This ruling was nowhere near the middle ground. They made the ruling up and it was then rubber stamped by a law lord who has previous for making it up as he goes along in cases regarding Rangers. It was a massive own goal by the SFA and i hope FIFA absolutely hammer them for it...as long as that punishment is within the rule book Correct, they should have been put out of their misery and executed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Ehhhh They did fine Rangers £160,000 Amazing that hatred can blind so many people...Rangers were wronged...This ruling was nowhere near the middle ground. They made the ruling up and it was then rubber stamped by a law lord who has previous for making it up as he goes along in cases regarding Rangers. It was a massive own goal by the SFA and i hope FIFA absolutely hammer them for it...as long as that punishment is within the rule book The punishment (transfer embargo ) was not explicit within the rule books but was implicit (any other punishement as deemed appropriate). It's like the last line on most managers' (not football) job description " and any other tasks as required" i.e. if yir director says jump, ye jump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I've used this before but in light of the new found resolve of some SPL chairmen, I'll submit this for the movie list 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It was age discriminatory...Get that through your thick skull. You cannot discriminate in such a way under European Employment laws. Is it really that difficult to grasp? How was it age discriminatory? Messi is over 18. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It was age discriminatory...Get that through your thick skull. You cannot discriminate in such a way under European Employment laws. Is it really that difficult to grasp? i personally think its disgusting that rangers have no female players cant discriminate ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GirondistNYC Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 1338471281[/url]' post='6290736']Apart from the fact that their entire 'involvement' and cosy relationship with Whyte, is a direct conflict of interest with their role as administrators. An international brand with a reputation, which matters a lot to them, would have been well aware of. Reputations do not stop companies acting outwith the moral boundaries of the rules ... they may simply have imagined the shit would never see the light of day. So where did they imagine the money to pay Lloyds TSB was coming from and should the Ticketus cash not been ring-fenced as working capital. Due diligence springs to mind The assumption some people are making is that D&P's actions as administrators have been influenced throughout by a pre-existing relationship with Whyte. I simply don't think that's true. At most, they entered with a ludicrously rosy picture of the situation based on what Whyte old them (last nights emails back this up). Once they are in the hotseat they, out of duty and out of naked self-interest, would proceed to the best of their abilities having realized what a crock of shite they actually had. In hindsight, the best of their abilities may be roughly comparable to Regi Blinker but I don't think any perceived conflict of interest involving Whyte has anything to do with it. I think they made a catastrophic error in guessing they could get clarity on a resolution before the player release clauses kicked in and before money started to run out, But I think that was because they misread the market for a takeover, reasonably factored the probability of a swifter BTC judgement and bought a bad line from the Rangers staff that an intact, happy squad would be more valuable on and off the pitch and more attractive to a bidder. Cock-up not conspiracy. If a firm wanted to sail close to the wind in an administration, this is by far the worst scenario to think "this shit would never see the light of day". The sporting context and the nature of the Scottish media meant they would be under an absurdly disproportionate level of scrutiny. Do you think Daly would be doing this stuff if it was Clinon Cards or that game store chain that went bust? I'll leave to an expert on accountancy and inolvency matters to determine whether the perceived conflict of interest means they never should have accepted the role in the first place, but I find it hard to believe it mattered in practice. P.S. quite liked the dead parrot bit. Brilliant! 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.