Stag Nation Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 When were Dunfermline punted out the cup? I thought (if this is about 2010) they were made to replay the match away from home, that in itself being a penalty made up on the hoof by the SFA. It wasn't made up on the hoof, it's in the Scottish Cup rules (Rule 39.1). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Sportsound once again talking sense about the situation. It's no coincidence that Chic and Jim are on their holidays. They're on holiday ? F*ck !! I was hoping that maybe they'd both fallen into a pit full of wolverines. BTW, loving this total pish in today's Daily Retard suggesting that the H*ns want to do a deal with the SFA re. "punishments". That would be lovely, they can get oxygen thief and EBT abuser Campbell Ogilvie to help them out. Let's not forget, he's still in post as President of the SFA. Edited June 2, 2012 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 (edited) Forgive any inaccuracies in this but... rulebooks have been re-written in the time since, but way back in 1995 Shotts Bon Accord were suspended from Scottish football after falling foul of the 'beaks' over court action. The problem arose after a minor cup tie caused Shotts selection problems because of a flu outbreak. Doctors lines were produced for a number of players to get the game postponed, but on investigation by the SJFA one line turned out to be unsupported by a player when asked. As a result, the club were kicked out of the cup. The cup was not completed that year as Shotts went to the Court of Session twice to get themselves reinstated to it. As punishment for taking matters to court, Shotts were suspended indefinitely from football... [it even made it to Parliament where a few well known names added their support to the SBA cause:] http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/commons/early-day-motions/edm-detail1/?session=1994-95&edmnumber=1343&orderby=Party&orderdirection=Asc ...though ended up coming back after a year for season 1996-97. They had been a top division side in the Central Juniors, but came in at the bottom level, though under new manager Rab Sneddon they then won all three divisions back to back. In terms of their players, some played elsewhere for a year, others never returned. Edited June 2, 2012 by cmontheloknow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I hope all who are up to date can see this. Newcomers will most likely miss it. No team from Scotland can go play in any other league. End of, zip it, nada. I would hope the readers of P&B are at least one step above RM, I mean, most posters can at least compose a couple of paragraphs, FFS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Lieutenant Green announces 3 new signings: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 It's also clear they viewed the cup ban as too lenient so they're going to have to pick something they had dismissed previously. And given Rangers broke a further rule in an attempt to pick their own punishment, if it wasn't 'the people' I don't think we'd even be debating what would happen next. its not clear at all. this is sfa statement. The Appellate Tribunal will give its full reasons in writing in early course. However, in summary, it considers that: 1. It was competent for Disciplinary Tribunal to impose the additional sanction of prohibiting registrations of any new players of 18 years or older for a period of 12 months. 2. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct to determine that the conduct involved - especially the deliberate non-payment of very large sums, estimated in excess of £13m of tax in the form of PAYE, NIC and VAT - was attributable to the club as a member of the Scottish FA. 3. The Disciplinary Tribunal was correct also in holding that the maximum fine available for this breach was £100,000, and on its own was inadequate as a punishment for this misconduct. It was therefore correct to select an additional sanction. 4. The sanctions available included expulsion from participation in the game and termination or suspension of membership of the Scottish FA, which would have had a similar effect. The Appellate Tribunal observes that serious consideration was given by the disciplinary tribunal to imposing one of these sanctions, which would have had obvious consequences for the survival of the club. The Disciplinary Tribunal rejected these as too severe and this Appellate Tribunal agrees with that conclusion. 5. Although the Appellate Tribunal has listened carefully to the representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the additional sanction, it has concluded that this sanction was proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute. In particular, the Appellate Tribunal recognises that the Disciplinary Tribunal decision does not affect Rangers’ ability to extend the contracts of existing professional players, including those whose contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those currently on loan to other clubs. The Appellate Tribunal observes that Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal affirms the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal. nowhere does it say a cup ban was too weak a penalty. if they are going for the most fitting punishment out of those available it would be more consistent to chose one that is a temporary punishment like their original choice than a terminal one (they have stated than suspension equals expulsion anyway). to me this seems like common sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sportsound D&P have steaked their reputation on HMRC doing a team 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sportsound D&P have steaked their reputation on HMRC doing a team What's their beef? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo'ness Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 greens take over team second from left is Dingwell, last on right knuckledragger, if I ever saw one That one in the middle looks uncannily like Gattuso! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 its not clear at all. this is sfa statement. nowhere does it say a cup ban was too weak a penalty. if they are going for the most fitting punishment out of those available it would be more consistent to chose one that is a temporary punishment like their original choice than a terminal one (they have stated than suspension equals expulsion anyway). to me this seems like common sense. If it wasn't too weak a penalty they'd have done the obvious thing and impose it originally. I can't see how it's common sense to reward further rule breaking with the punishment Rangers have basically requested. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffcsam Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 What's their beef? popeseye 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 nowhere does it say a cup ban was too weak a penalty. By making up a punishment their actions demonstrated that a cup ban was too lenient, or else they would have gone with that. Tenious I know but what the hell 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Heard part of the discussion on sportsound. Spence and English very good, but so many factors and variables they were talking around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billkmc Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Did I hear Neil lennons agent say he would hope Neil could manage Celtic in the premiership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepitsafe Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Did I hear Neil lennons agent say he would hope Neil could manage Celtic in the premiership. Wasn't just me then? Good. You sometimes wonder what people in football drink (or take)! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougie247 Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Did I hear Neil lennons agent say he would hope Neil could manage Celtic in the premiership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fozzie Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 apparently this thread is an license to talk absolute shite as long as it's about rangers going out the game then? the sfa aren't going to expel rangers over this, they have already told the court of session that they view that as too harsh a punishment yet we have people on here who are sure it's going to happen and won't hear otherwise. the other night before the thomson email revelation i was a '***' for saying they would be a load of shite. guess what? i was a *** for disagreeing that H&D would be removed asap about 4 times in the last month. guess what? i was *** for saying there would no criminal charges over this. guess what? i think this whole thing will end with a newco playing in the spl with a one season points deduction, one season cup ban and 3 year euro ban. i think that would be pretty fair and please neither the ocrs on follow follow or the uberdiddies on here. Well, if that happens then Scottish football deserves to die. Simple as that. By the way; Motherwell fan my arse! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geefoxer Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 That's great news. If the view is that the SPL can do without Celtic (by them going to Engerlund), then the SPL can cope with the loss of Mordor FC. Bye then! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Sportsound once again talking sense about the situation. It's no coincidence that Chic and Jim are on their holidays. Dunno, one of the biggest point and laugh moments on here in the last week is their colleague Wee Billy dropping Minty in the shit. No mention that I heard was probably 'cos the words ''their colleague''. Once Dodds is nailed to the cross, I bet they will be all ''exclusively told you here first''. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 That's great news. If the view is that the SPL can do without Celtic (by them going to Engerlund), then the SPL can cope with the loss of Mordor FC. Bye then! ''The view'' is a Dundee band. Thats as close as you'll get wae that troll. The quote is from someone who makes cash outa getting people into the EPL cashcow. It has no bearing on Lennons opinion. 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.