boosarker Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Just to stop the silly employment law nonsense that has detracted from the Cockwomble chat: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/YoungPeople/Workandcareers/Yourrightsandresponsibilitiesatwork/DG_066272 Under 18s are legally completely different to 'Adult' workers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) There was nothing to stop teams in the early 90s employing 'foreigners' but they couldn't play them. You honestly still don't get it do you The SPL limits the number of players in a matchday squad over the age of 21 is this illegal? If so why have the moral crusaders at Ibrox not fought it? Edited May 31, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Witold Sygula Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Rangers have never had a discriminatory signing policy Wow! One of the best ever! Keep em coming mate,thus will keep me amused til the shit really hits the fan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roverthemoon Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 (edited) In the midst of all this nonsense, I was looking for a song that sums up how I feel about the possibility of Rangers being liquidated and ceasing to exist. Step forward Steven Patrick Morrissey (aye, definitely one of them as the bigots would say). Great tune and sentiment spot on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQbzLrvwlE&feature=related Edited May 31, 2012 by roverthemoon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Talk of transfer embargoes is pretty inaccurate tbh. If you think about it the punishment neither applies only to transfers nor is it blanket (i.e. an embargo). It's lazy-speak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakedee Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Dundee exercised a right-of-appeal to a 3rd party organisation, the SFA. And then what,go to CoS if unhappy with the verdict of the appeal,which they did not & accepted the punishment,as others have done,unlike Rangers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 A handy summary of No.8's posts this afto, for anyone who has missed them: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weebud Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 A self confessed celtic goes on the TV and openly lies about Rangers and he gets 1 email that the police are dealing with. While that is regrettable it is nothing compared to what others are experiencing right now Lord Glennie who has no allegiance to any club and gave an honest judgement has been threatened with 1 in particular promising to 'Shoot to kill' At the same time we have 3 Rangers players who have been targeted by Racists and have been suffering this abuse for months. McCoists 17 year old son threatened with death and his only crime is his dad happens to be Rangers manager. And so on and so on Two questions for you:- 1) Which "lie" did he tell? 2) How do you know Lord Glennie has no allegiance to any team ?? (is there an inference that one of the other "lawlords" allowed their allegiance to cloud their judgement?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Well,apparently the cockwomble is not happy with certain people on here,and has made his feelings be known. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings 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? Absolute nonsense. Anti discrimination legislation has now been consolidated in the Equality Act 2010. Perhaps you'd like to identify the provisions which would prevent the SFA from imposing this sanction. You'll need to identify a particular individual who has been discriminated against, the person acting in a discriminatory manner and the discriminatory act. If the act complained of is only indirectly discriminatory (ie. not the intended consequence) then you'll also need to show that the act was not in pursuit of a legitimate aim or disproportionate. I shan't hold my breath. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 1 final time. The 3 foreigner rule was scraped as it went against European Employment laws...The ruling stated that you could sign anybody you wanted from whatever country but could only play 3 foreigners at any one time. So you could employ whoever but 'foreigners' were discriminated against as only 3 could play at any one time. The SFA ruling was age discriminatory as Rangers could employ anybody they wanted but only players under 18 could be played...This clearly discriminates against players such as Gattuso that wants to join but Rangers wouldn't sign him as the ruling says he is too old to be registered. If you keep stringing words together, eventually some of them will make sense. So, keep your spirits up and keep bashing away Both had a first appeal heard by another body within the organisation (in SFL EGM; in SFA judicial panel). However, while Dundee/Livi could then make a second appeal outside - to SFA - Rangers could not. That's all my original post was highlighting. They were allowed, under SFA rules, no avenue of recourse outside the organisation itself. I think its open to debate whether or not the SFA rules actually preclude an appeal to CAS. Had Rangers chosen to gone down this route, rather than CoS, I dont think we'd be having the same debates. The process has to stop somewhere. The SFA are the governing body, with its own appeals process. Im not sure that the fact that the SFL imposed the initial sanction rather than the SFA itself is all that relevant. Again, both Livy and Dundee could have chosen to take the matter further, but didnt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 And then what,go to CoS if unhappy with the verdict of the appeal,which they did not & accepted the punishment,as others have done,unlike Rangers I don't see what that's got to do with my point? My point was simply the factual observation that Dundee were allowed to (and did) seek recourse outwith the organisation applying the punishment. Whereas Rangers weren't allowed to. Also, for note, Dundee should've been... and possibly were, depending on SFA rules pre-rewrite... able to go onward to CAS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShedruleFTD83 Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Bad news Charlie, the punishment wasn't too harsh, it was too lenient and there's only one way it can go from there, Rangers appealed, won their case to have a punishment outlined in the rule book handed down, the only realistic punishment left is suspension or expulsion. That's the way you wanted it, that's the way you'll get it you sad twat. I don't think it is advisable for Regan to meet with Green, surely things have gone too far for such "cozy" meetings, impartial and independent individuals such as judges should be dealing with all aspects of this matter, if Green has something to say it should be done in front of the panel deciding what punishment should be given out, not directly and sneakily trying to influence others to see his way of thinking, especially when he is using the old "Scottish football will die without Rangers" chestnut. I've news for you Charlie, it's maybe gotten to the stage that Scottish football will die WITH Rangers. I find Greens attitude nauseating, he's only in it too make money and for him to come across as the great caring saviour is just a total farce, him D&P and Whyte are all in this together. Green dot later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 It has been explained and you honestly still don't get it You have to be at the wind up You can discriminate by age, look at the minimum wage. Furthermore, the judgement had nothing to do with employment law, so stop spouting pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Talk of transfer embargoes is pretty inaccurate tbh. If you think about it the punishment neither applies only to transfers nor is it blanket (i.e. an embargo). It's lazy-speak. Yes, but everyone knows what we're referring to. What would you rather we call it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punk_dfc 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'm a lawyer....it's not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveybhoy Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Wow! One of the best ever! Keep em coming mate,thus will keep me amused til the shit really hits the fan rangers non descrimitory signing policy in the eyes of the great rikki fulton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 You missed the point over the 3 foreigners policy? No, I discounted that as being an entirely different set of conditions and circumstances - Not least because a specific punishment that is recognized in football as legitimate is entirely different from wider employment conditions and regulations. I understand what you are saying but in any case, it's totally irrelevant to what happened in the CoS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Partck Thistle also took the footballing authorities to the CoS. Not the sfa. Is there any chance you'll ever post anything relevant? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 I'm a lawyer....it's not. Better lawyers than yourself disagree and they are the experts in this field 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.