Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 just got in from work and last time I checked we were all pishing our pants at the comedy CVA. So, to get up to speed - Scottish fitba is going to hell in a handcart, yes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Does anyone know the possible punishments for taking the original decision to civil court, or is this just classed as bringing the game further into disrepute? They could always tack this on to the original charge and then expulsion may not be deemed too harsh. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 As it seems to have been missed...they can also give a suspended sentence, say, until further transgressions take place or other previous bad behaviour comes to light. This means they can threaten them with expulsion and hope they die in the meantime...and then when the dual contract investigation finds against them legitimately expel them then. And if for some reason they win that, the SFA will be able to claim they acted tougher than mere cup exclusion while not having to do anything else (unless there are more revelations to come of course...but that will be hanging over Rangers until all investigations are complete. Seems to be the best solution for the SFA to me. Seems to me that suspended sanctions NEVER get enforced.............when something new pops-up it is always easy to arrgue that the new case should be dealt exactly as that - something new and not related (in this case Rangers might say that they had missed no more VAT/NI which is why they were found to have brought the game into disrepute). Suspended punishments almost seems an even worse case scenario, as they'd never be invoked. In practice Ranjurs would get-off scott-free. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuntoiRab Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The Sion situation was quite different and Sion was never punished for going to the courts. Why are all the recent OF members morons? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Can you us the part where it says a transfer embargo cannot be imposed. Thanks the part that the court of session said it was illegal, if you believe them to be wrong then please show us 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paquis Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 FIFA imposed the ban, but the Swiss FA essentially ignored it and allowed Sion to register players. After Celtic's appeal about Sion was upheld by UEFA the club took it to the Swiss courts. At that point, UEFA demanded that the Swiss FA punish Sion, which they did with a massive points deduction. No. Sion was granted a temporary injunction by a court in Valais that they could field the players. The Swiss FA respected that injunction until it was overturned by a higher court. It was FIFA that demanded that the Swiss FA punish Sion, not UEFA. However, the points deduction was for fielding ineligible players and not for taking FIFA/UEFA/Swiss FA to court. The points deduction only happened after Sion had lost both in Swiss court (Vaud and Valais) and at the CAS (which Swiss jurisprudence recognises as being competent). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Too lenient there. For me, expulsion, then liquidation, then newco starting at the bottom of division three is more deserving after all the muck that's been thrown up. Revelation after revelation has put the game beyond disrepute. Sad and depressing really. That's probably impossible. Technically, the players on EBTs were all 'ineligible' If EBTs found to = 2nd contracts. Edited May 29, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Wrong ... the panel genuinely thought that they could show leniency by implementing their catch all "we can apply any sanction we see fit rule" You have said no way we don't accept that rule as valid ... pick one of the other sanctions available. Rangers cannot have it both ways ... If the SFA bottle it .. they are corrupt IMO. Correct , the only two punishments the SFA have on the books (seeing as rangers don't want made up punishments )are suspension or expulsion. Great victory today rangers... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 That has not been proven as yet. Beyond a reasonable doubt will be a phrase you'll be hearing a lot of very shortly......tick tock 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 That has not been proven as yet. On that we agree. I await the damning verdict regarding EBTs with great interest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivo den Bieman Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Green could Newco tomorrow - that ends Administration and Gattuso could be parading a Rangers top to the press on friday morning. It's that bad. ocht nonsense. Green won't lay out a bean more of his investors money than he has to to achieve his aim- asset stripping Rangers and leaving with a handsome profit to show for his "efforts". That is, if he takes over the club at all. Gennaro Gattuso, for all his keening and whining from Milan, won't be back for a big last payday in Glasgow. The reason? he (nor any other expensive player) is simply not part of Green's plan. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 That's probably impossible. Thats definitely maybe 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caledonian Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Am I missing something here? How will they be able to sign players? Aren't they still in administration? Isn't a CVA still extremely unlikely and a NewCo/Liquidation the only viable alternative? Don't they still have the BTC? Isn't the issue of EBT and Double contracts still on the table? Aren't the wages going back up to 100% on Friday? Isn't Charles Green still regarded as an asset stripper? Don't their best players still have minimum release fees on their contracts which will see then go on the cheap, regardless of CVA outcome? Even if they do exit admin via a CVA, how do they expect to get additional funding to replenish what will probably be a decimated squad? Rangers have won a tiny, relatively insignificant battle today, which may drag out yet (if they were allowed to appeal not once, but twice, then surely the SFA have the right of appeal as well). They still have a multitude more to face and against much higher powers than the SFA and with far greater consequences. Nope, you're not missing much. It is all as you state with the exception of the bit about winning a small battle. The consequence of that is that FIFA will now be knocking on the SFA's door in order to ensure that they impose something which realistically could involve expulsion. Losing in court today would have been a better result for Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) That's probably impossible. If EBTs found to = 2nd contracts. Very true, as I believe the SFL require 3 years audited accounts minimum in order to join. Big Welcome to Spartans please!! Edited May 29, 2012 by GunnerBairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Wrong ... the panel genuinely thought that they could show leniency by implementing their catch all "we can apply any sanction we see fit rule" You have said no way we don't accept that rule as valid ... pick one of the other sanctions available. Rangers cannot have it both ways ... If the SFA bottle it .. they are corrupt IMO. the panel made a c**t of it by simply creating a punishment that wasnt available to them, its not the rule rangers apparently broke that the club is contesting, it is the punishment that wasnt available to the panel that the club are contesting it would be like a player being found guilty of blatant diving and the panel giving them a 10 game ban, when there is nothing in the rules saying the panel can make this new punishment if the SFA and the appeal panel actually used a punishment available to them this wouldnt have went to court 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
54_and_counting Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Correct , the only two punishments the SFA have on the books (seeing as rangers don't want made up punishments )are suspension or expulsion. Great victory today rangers... or simply a cup ban 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djchapsticks Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 ocht nonsense. Green won't lay out a bean more of his investors money than he has to to achieve his aim- asset stripping Rangers and leaving with a handsome profit to show for his "efforts". That is, if he takes over the club at all. Gennaro Gattuso, for all his keening and whining from Milan, won't be back for a big last payday in Glasgow. The reason? he (nor any other expensive player) is simply not part of Green's plan. My point exactly. Had Gatusso been worthy of any sort of sell-on fee, then it would have been an outside possibility. However, last I checked, he was blind in one eye, past it, playing very little and on the verge of getting his face panned in by Joe Jordan. You can't draw money from an old crock like him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 the panel made a c**t of it by simply creating a punishment that wasnt available to them, its not the rule rangers apparently broke that the club is contesting, it is the punishment that wasnt available to the panel that the club are contesting it would be like a player being found guilty of blatant diving and the panel giving them a 10 game ban, when there is nothing in the rules saying the panel can make this new punishment if the SFA and the appeal panel actually used a punishment available to them this wouldnt have went to court The punishment was available to them under their own rules. The court judgement today was that the discretionary part of the SFA rule was illegal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Why though? The remit he gave himself when agreeing to buy Rangers was to bring in players which would make a return on his investment. Is a 34 year old, half blind attack dog who is at a halfway house between retirement and one last glory run at a shambling wreck of what used to be a big club, going to be the way ahead for a guy, who by all accounts, is a fucking ruthless businessman? Ok - I gave a daft example of someone who could be wearing a jersey by Friday. McDonald has clearly stated thathis interest was to operate as a player owning ring wherein the consortium bankrolls new prospects, retain ownership then pocket the proceeds when they are moved-on. So, OK, what I was really saying is that they could newco tomorrow, enter negotiations to buy some South American 20 year old striker and have him at Ibrox for the photo opportunity of 6 June when Green assumes financial responsibility. It's that bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Ok - I gave a daft example of someone who could be wearing a jersey by Friday. McDonald has clearly stated thathis interest was to operate as a player owning ring wherein the consortium bankrolls new prospects, retain ownership then pocket the proceeds when they are moved-on. So, OK, what I was really saying is that they could newco tomorrow, enter negotiations to buy some South American 20 year old striker and have him at Ibrox for the photo opportunity of 6 June when Green assumes financial responsibility. It's that bad. They couldn't legally register any player until they are a member of the SFA. They can't transfer Rangers SPL share without the permission of the SPL board. Edited May 29, 2012 by craigkillie 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.