Fife Saint Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Which article was breached by Rangers approaching the civil court? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 The appeal to arbitration was blocked by the SFAs own rules so Rangers had no option. ^^^This was proven as utter bollocks ages ago but don't let facts get in the way of your optimistic rambling 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I am reading it that he is leaving no recourse to return to the court. If he states that Rangers are to be punished for going to court, or the punishment will be harsher for going to court then the SFA may be vulnerable. He has made it clear that the avenue of going to the CAS is available, therefore further appeals by Rangers to CoS could be punished separately. Given the verdict of the court, I don't think there is any cause or real justification for the SFA to punish Rangers merely for going to court. However it still looks like a potential mistake on the part of Rangers for two reasons. 1) The detail of Lord Glennie's verdict indicates quite clearly based on the detail of the verdict of the Appellate Tribunal that a harsher penalty (namely suspension) should now be considered. The implications of a suspension are not entirely clear - it probably depends largely on how long they would be suspended for. 2) The reaction of some of the SPL chairmen, along with the clear involvement of FIFA, indicates that politically the decision to go to court could prove to have repercussions. As things stand, the SFA and the SPL chairmen may yet have an opportunity or indeed a requirement to punish Rangers further, or especially in the case of the SPL chairmen, to block their route via a newco. Those chairmen will perhaps remain pragmatic, but with a number of issues still to be resolved regarding both the current situation and Rangers' conduct over the EBT era, gambling on the goodwill of the rest of the game does not seem particularly prudent. Of course it could also be a gamble that pays off for Rangers if they can resolve their problems relatively quickly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I don't see what you're getting at - I'm sure I've read that the total raised by the RFFFFFFFFFFFF was less than £600k and they pissed most of that away on legal counsel and reseeding. To take just a few examples - how does RFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF settle:- Chelsea - £238k Hearts - £800k Arsenal - £136k Man city - £328k Rapid - £1m It could be doable. Lets say a CVA reduced the remaining liability to round £2M, and RFFF committed to pay it in installments over 2 years... that's £19k a week. Could be done. Particularly if they knew that it had to be for Europe etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby_F Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I would suggest there is enough evidence of a prima facie case against Rangers on the EBTs. I would also suggest the onus would be on Rangers to prove that the payments were not loans which would be difficult as in the case of Billy Dodds who has already publicy stated that his money was not a loan but a payment of outstanding wages. The SPL is not a court of Law so do not have the same jurisdiction that a Court would look for. Enough prima facie evidence and the onus is on Rangers to prove otherwise. But surely if Rangers provide the SFA with the schedule of repayments that have occurred over the years from the 40+ recipients (easily backed up by bank statements) the SFA won't have a leg to stand on. Don't know why Rangers didn't just photocopy the bank statements right at the start of this then they wouldn't have a case to answer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I am reading it that he is leaving no recourse to return to the court. If he states that Rangers are to be punished for going to court, or the punishment will be harsher for going to court then the SFA may be vulnerable. He has made it clear that the avenue of going to the CAS is available, therefore further appeals by Rangers to CoS could be punished separately. I'm reading it that yet again Rangers are being treated lightly by the Scottish football authorities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 As someone who is not connected to this in anyway whatsoever,i tend to agree that there could have been worse sanctions or punishments given 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) It could be doable. Lets say a CVA reduced the remaining liability to round £2M, and RFFF committed to pay it in installments over 2 years... that's £19k a week. Could be done. Particularly if they knew that it had to be for Europe etc. So in it's big initial push to bring-about a 'one-off' gesture by fans, the RFFFFFFF managed to raise a little over half a million in total from Orcs "desperate" to get their Club over a crisis. Yet you believe that the RFFFFFF can continue to raise substantial funds on an ongoing basis - £20k+ per week for the next 2 years?????? Is that what you're saying?????? How many red&black scarfs are the Orcs gonna buy each????? Edited June 7, 2012 by Claymores 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 It could be doable. Lets say a CVA reduced the remaining liability to round £2M, and RFFF committed to pay it in installments over 2 years... that's £19k a week. Could be done. Particularly if they knew that it had to be for Europe etc. What do you mean by that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 I'm reading it that yet again Rangers are being treated lightly by the Scottish football authorities. But FIFA are watching...FIFA are going to throw every Scottish club out of Europe because of Rangers actions. FIFA are going to demand Rangers are expelled..killed off for good. It was all utter nonsense and a smokescreen for the SFA to hide behind after their own rules were questioned by FIFA -4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Which article was breached by Rangers approaching the civil court? Rangers appeal to the civil courts broke two SFA Articles and five Fifa statues. The two primary ones are stated below: Fifa statute 64.2 states “recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations”. SFA article 65.5 says “the fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such difference or questions to a court of law”. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrugalNory Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 There is nothing in that article which states that it WILL be suspension and expulsion. It suggest only that there could be a less severe or a more severe punishment open to the panel,nothing else. Nowhere does it state what will happen. I suggest you re read my posts as I never said it did. I said the original ruling stated suspension was to harsh. Which the article DOES say here: " It had ruled that for Rangers' offences, a fine was too lenient but suspension or termination of membership too harsh." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caff Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 But FIFA are watching...FIFA are going to throw every Scottish club out of Europe because of Rangers actions. FIFA are going to demand Rangers are expelled..killed off for good. It was all utter nonsense and a smokescreen for the SFA to hide behind after their own rules were questioned by FIFA Got any proof of that? Or is it just more conjecture? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 For someone who takes great joy in lambasting people for conjecturing, you do a hell of a lot of it yourself I am not lambasting others at all. Everybody is perfectly entitled to their own opinion on how this will all pan out. In this case there is absolutely no conjecture because if FIFAs anger was directed at Rangers Stewart Regan would not be telling the world there will be no punishment for taking the SFA to court. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Rangers appeal to the civil courts broke two SFA Articles and five Fifa statues. The two primary ones are stated below: Fifa statute 64.2 states “recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations”. SFA article 65.5 says “the fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such difference or questions to a court of law”. Fairly clear, thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 What do you mean by that? His figures of liabilities to clubs are about £2.4M... if you took-off Xp in £ that'd be settled by CVA (say 5p), and any installments that wouldn't fall due - it might leave £2M? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caff Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 (edited) I am not lambasting others at all. Everybody is perfectly entitled to their own opinion on how this will all pan out. In this case there is absolutely no conjecture because if FIFAs anger was directed at Rangers Stewart Regan would not be telling the world there will be no punishment for taking the SFA to court. No, that's your opinion of the situation, nothing more, nothing less ie conjecture. You have no more idea about what's going on behind closed doors than anyone else Edited June 7, 2012 by Caff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 In the interests of proving they will no longer be a sectarian club, how about 'The Maurice Johnston Academy' - also quite popular in Glasgow? Better still "The Alfie Conn Academy". It has a nice ring of truth about it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrugalNory Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 How could The Herald possibly know anyway? Exactly the reason i never even bothered opening the link It doesn't know whats going to happen and I never said it did. I was making a reference to a source that states the original decision makers considered suspension to harsh. I'm sure there are others but this just happened to be the first one I found. Happy to be proved wrong if they didn't say anything of the sort. Perhaps I should just make conjecture up and post totally unsubstantiated shite like everyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Im not so sure. As we know, Rangers went to court to appeal the process, in effect, rather than the actual punishment. Therefore, theres no precedent that would allow, for example, a player sent off to appeal their suspension - as long as they were punished in accordance with the rules. The SFA can avoid any other clubs taking action by making sure they apply the rules exactly as they are written. Trying to take action against Rangers for going to the CoS would open up a whole new round of legal wrangling with Rangers claiming they had no choice and the SFA claiming that the wording of the rules doesnt actually preclude an appeal to CAS. It wouldnt achieve anything, ultimately. It looks to me like the reason they went to CoS, ignoring CAS, was time-related, CAS may have taken too long to overturn the decision. IMO the whole premise of Green's takeover is the "buy'em and sell'em" strategy, and if they can't do that the whole thing falls at the first fence, so they HAD to get rid of the transfer embargo. However, Beecher's Brook awaits, as does The Chair, and I suspect Green's horse thinks it's in a flat race. 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.