Savage Henry Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Ok I will be the daft one today.I read in the paper today that Hearts are still not happy about the non payment of the Lee Wallace transfer fee. Now if you or I buy something like a car then fail to pay the full amount then the finance company will come along and repossess the vehicle. Why can't a football team which has not been paid the full amount not be able to repossess the players registration that was sold to the other club?Surely Hearts would then be able to sell on the player to make up any shortfall in the original transfer fee. Did Rangers not claim Craig Moore back after Crystal Palace decided they couldn't afford to pay for him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Dogma Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Gretna managed 3 successive promotions with far less resources than a completely fresh newco Rangers would have. No, Gretna spent money they didnt have on players good enough to get those promotions and went bust. they also didnt have a 50000 capacity stadium and murray park to operate and maintain. newco rfc will have no credit and a budget which will struggle just to maintain and operate ibrox and mp, let alone pay for players. if a newco starts in sfl 3 it will die in short order from lack of funds cos theyre is no way they will be getting more than a cpl of thousand hardcore knuckle draggers in week after week for a MINIMUM of 3 years to watch annan and east stirling. The concept of sustainability will kill newco rfc, even if by some miracle it was allowed into spl....their fans only turn up when they are liable to win things and this isnt gonna happen when they have to adhere to a budget.Crowd of 18000 for cup game against dufc and the tiny crowds in the 70s 80s show this. the most likely thing that will happen re a newco is 4 or 5 versions of em in the juniors bickering about who the 'real' carries of the torch are 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I don't see that as a major issue. Assuming the first 20 or so games were delayed for them, it may mean one home game and one away game for each team to be rescheduled. For full-time players, an additional two midweek games somewhere between January and May won't kill them. The SFA wanted to avoid suspending Rangers, hence Regan talking about the lack of 'pragmatic' options available with the removal of the embargo. A limited suspension seems like one of the few pragmatic options left. They would be punished without the SFA slaughtering one of their golden-egg-laying geese. By January, with no money coming in, there won't be a Rangers. It would be much kinder to kill them off straight away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Rangers will face severe punishment for what has happened to date - whatever problems may come about as a result of such punishment things have gone too far for it not to happen. And we've not even had the EBT issue finalised yet. Rangers will not die as a result of this. In three years time Rangers, in some form, will be back in the SPL and within a year of this will be vying with Celtic to be league champions. The long-term views of many non OF supporters will have been shaped by their club chairmans' stances on this matter. As an Arab I am very grateful for everything Steven Thomson and the Thomson family has done for United, but he has come across as totally spineless on the Rangers issue; and he's not the only one. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Given the increase in the price of metals how come we still have the gates at Ibrox standing? With wall plaques being nicked, cabling removed, even metal sculptures from the middle of rivers disappearing during the night, I am sure it is not beyond the capability of some Govanites to get a tow truck in place to rip them down and off to the scrappy. Bound to be worth a few quid - cash in hand 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Article in the Sunday Herald of interest http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/taylors-attack-on-rangers.17763659 Misleading headline, but without 'threatening'. Taylor is making it clear there is no hiding place for the SFA, and especially Rangers. Interesting his swipe at Duff & Duffer. He doesn't use the word incompetent, but that is exactly what he means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sting777 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) http://www.dailyreco. ..86908-23883880/ If this is true then the SFA and the AT have no option but to go for the jugular. This is going to make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like Guy Fawkes night. I hope that if they beg with the SFA that they will accept the original 12 month embargo, that they are told where to go. With putting the national teams World Cup participation and all the other SPL Champions League and Europa Cuo places in doubt they should be told straight.....the 12 month embargo is now 24 months, you are expelled from the Scottish Cup for three years and you have been relegated to Div 3. If they want to take that to the court , they are told, fair enough...YOU ARE EXPELLED FROM SCOTTISH FOOTBALL! Its now time to stop all this pussyfooting around this disgrace of a football team!! Edited June 3, 2012 by Sting777 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Some reports indicate that Rangers will seek a negotiated punishment. Say a 6 month transfer ban. Personally i would through the book at them. By running to the courts they have endangered far more than themselves. Did they take the slightest cognisance of their actions? Was it a footballing decision or one made by the Administrators,or even both? Someone in the club must of realised that there could be serious ramification . Just look at Sion last year. But as others have said the authorities will not want to kill the goose,so some form of punishment will be conjured up. A cup ban is far far to soft. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnstoun Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I hope that if they beg with the SFA that they will accept the original 12 month embargo, that they are told where to go. With putting the national teams World Cup participation and all the other SPL Champions League and Europa Cuo places in doubt they should be told straight.....the 12 month embargo is now 24 months, you are expelled from the Scottish Cup for three years and you have been relegated to Div 3. If they want to take that to the court , they are told, fair enough...YOU ARE EXPELLED FROM SCOTTISH FOOTBALL! Its now time to stop all this pussyfooting around this disgrace of a football team!! I don't think they can. The judgement has been set, so the SFA would be in contempt if they applied the embargo. Even if they could precedent has now been set for Green or another owner to take the SFA straight back to court for handing out a non-statutory punishment. The only outcome can be cup ban, suspension or expulsion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sting777 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 A whole day to catch up on but this Scotland on Sunday article is the business http://m.scotsman.co...ngers-1-2335890 Excellent article! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 if the sfa punished a team for going to court the team would just go back to court and get it overturned. regan has said several times over the weekend that the sfa must be compliant with the law. you would then need fifa or uefa to step in and punish the full of scottish football (which is what has been threatened). i think that a european court would overturn that. the parralel with whistleblowers or harrasment reporters is that it is a principle of european law that you cannot be punished for seeking justice ie you can't be penalised for going to court. i don't know what this green deal is. how can a deal be cut with an independent panel? Based on what? The challenge we've just had was based around the SFA acting outwith their rules. If the SFA punish Rangers for going to court and it is within their rules, on what grounds would the club challenge it? does lord glennie say in his verdict that explusion would be suitable? my understanding is that rangers only challenged the panel's ability to set their own punishment rather than the verdict or any of the specified punishments. i believe another court of session challenge is possible. proof the final sentence on page 2 running onto page 3 edit for proof Lord Glennie didnt make any comment on the suitability of any punishment, his only judgement was that the Tribunal panel acted outwith the rules of the SFA. He has directed them, therefore, to pick a sanction specifically noted in the rules, but has made no comment on what that should be. If the panel does this then Im not sure where another CoS challenge could come from, perhaps you could enlighten us? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 I hope that if they beg with the SFA that they will accept the original 12 month embargo, that they are told where to go. With putting the national teams World Cup participation and all the other SPL Champions League and Europa Cuo places in doubt they should be told straight.....the 12 month embargo is now 24 months, you are expelled from the Scottish Cup for three years and you have been relegated to Div 3. If they want to take that to the court , they are told, fair enough...YOU ARE EXPELLED FROM SCOTTISH FOOTBALL! Its now time to stop all this pussyfooting around this disgrace of a football team!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Did Rangers not claim Craig Moore back after Crystal Palace decided they couldn't afford to pay for him? Think you are right, seem to remember that at the time, can't find any online articles about it though, just this from Wiki "Moore spent most of the 1998–99 season at Crystal Palace; despite being regarded as a success in London as the Eagles' fought relegation, he returned to Rangers after the South London club defaulted on transfer payments." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulmcc12 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 What Might Happen to Rangers at the Re-Heard Appellate Tribunal? Some lengthy reading for a Sunday, in which I attempt to answer the question of what Lord Carloway’s Appellate Tribunal will decide about an additional sanction on Rangers. In the process of reaching a conclusion on this, I consider the following. What did the Judicial Panel think of the gravity of Rangers’ offence? What options are open to the Appellate Tribunal? Why I do not think ejection from the Scottish Cup is either competent or appropriate. What effect would suspension, expulsion or termination have on Rangers. What could Mr Green do, in the event of any of the above three penalties being imposed? Can Rangers agree a shorter signing ban with the SFA? What will happen before Lord Carloway? If unhappy with the decision can Rangers appeal further, whether to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or to the Court of Session? And I conclude with a foray into Shakespearean adaptation! http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/03/what-might-happen-to-rangers-at-the-re-heard-appellate-tribunal/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 How the feck do you answer a personal conversation on here ? I think I'm doing something wrong !. Hit 'add reply' to this thread, copy and paste the received message, then type in your response and hit 'post' Right, its June the 3rd. rule H6.1 states that a ground must be registered by 01/06 for the following season. I believe this was included by default in the extension they got a couple of days ago for the audited accounts. 'If' it is to be a newco, would this extension with regard to the ground registration carry over or are they fukked? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) What Might Happen to Rangers at the Re-Heard Appellate Tribunal? Some lengthy reading for a Sunday, in which I attempt to answer the question of what Lord Carloway's Appellate Tribunal will decide about an additional sanction on Rangers. In the process of reaching a conclusion on this, I consider the following. What did the Judicial Panel think of the gravity of Rangers' offence? What options are open to the Appellate Tribunal? Why I do not think ejection from the Scottish Cup is either competent or appropriate. What effect would suspension, expulsion or termination have on Rangers. What could Mr Green do, in the event of any of the above three penalties being imposed? Can Rangers agree a shorter signing ban with the SFA? What will happen before Lord Carloway? If unhappy with the decision can Rangers appeal further, whether to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, or to the Court of Session? And I conclude with a foray into Shakespearean adaptation! http://scotslawthoug...llate-tribunal/ As always a good article, but I wouldn't rule out the prospect of Rangers getting a few months suspension from playing league games, then playing catch-up. The full year's suspension would likely kill them and that surely will be avoided. I wouldn't miss them but I guess others would. I would foresee fixtures issued then all of RFC's games being postponed until the suspension passes. The 6 month ban I suggested earlier would have the maximum effect - make them play twice a week until the end of the season. I can see 3 months being given though. I would suggest the lack of specified time on the suspension punishment makes this the toughest soft sanction on the table. Edited June 3, 2012 by Jim Leighton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Again I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that every friendly match played in Scotland requires the permission of the SFA. on off the ball before the cup final something like that was mentioned and they were talking about Edinburgh City (i think it was Jim Farry days) and they were denied from playing someone(foreign team)in a fundrasier 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highland Dogma Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 A whole day to catch up on but this Scotland on Sunday article is the business http://m.scotsman.co...ngers-1-2335890 wow actual jounalism with proper research.....not seen much of that recently ! good to see the comments as well reflecting real life, more diddies talking sense and illiterate rantings from the of fans 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 How about: 5 year ban from Scottish Cup 6 month suspension from SFA (effective from July 1st, applied to all competitions and matches) Fine of £100,000 In terms of the 6 month suspension, I would see it as some way towards being just, but not forcing them to fold. Rangers would not have to concede any games as 3-0 defeats, but they'd have to accommodate their 38 game programme into the period of Jan 2nd to mid May. And bloody Sky get to keep their OF grimfests. And us diddies get to keep the TV money. If the police refuse to cover 18+ games at Ibrox in that space of time, then the ones they won't do are closed door. Everyone's a winner. Having teams coming late into a league is not unheard of: for legal reasons, in Greece last year two sides didn't start until late November, 3 months after everyone else. right i get what your alluding too but if they are to play their matches then where is the punishment in the suspension 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Ok I will be the daft one today.I read in the paper today that Hearts are still not happy about the non payment of the Lee Wallace transfer fee. Now if you or I buy something like a car then fail to pay the full amount then the finance company will come along and repossess the vehicle. Why can't a football team which has not been paid the full amount not be able to repossess the players registration that was sold to the other club?Surely Hearts would then be able to sell on the player to make up any shortfall in the original transfer fee. i dont believe rangers have actually missed a payment on the player as yet 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.