itzdrk Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 im away to bed, happy dreams again knowing the rangers are deed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The problem is that if you start treating football like any other job, then it all falls apart. I don't know your job, but when was the last time a rival company offered your company a transfer fee for you? And if that fee wasn't acceptable, you had to stay there? What is to stop a football player deciding he wants to leave, and demanding complete freedom of movement in the courts? Or if a player isn't allowed in a squad because there are limits on foreign/over 21 players? Football works purely because it is a private club. If it was totally subject to law, then it would result in the complete breakdown of the international game. Obviously, there are limits on this, but generally, sport is not law. It doesn't all fall apart. The SFA panel was incompetent. Why was it wrong for the CoS to agree this? OK so it may cause 'Old Rangers's greater problems but why was it wrong for us to use the CoS for arbitration? The contract issue is a little different. I have a notice period in my contract (like most people) and 'cooling off period' wherein I can't work for competitive companies for 12 months. This isn't that different to a football club. Anyway, he issue wasn't about contracts but about interpretation. Rangers used Scotland's civil court to help the SFA interpret its own rules as the SFA couldn't do so on it's own. This should be seen as a service to football. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 First post but felt I had to join this excellent thread. I've been a regular supporter of Scottish Football for some 33 years. Some seasons I've had a season ticket, others I have paid at the gate but I have only missed a handful of games in that time, all due to holiday or illness. This is in my opinion is the most critical period our game has faced in many years, probably in it's entire history. If a newco is voted in then for me I will turn my back on the game that has given me both some fabulous highs and devastating lows over the years. Sporting integrity is the only thing that matters, anything else reduces our game to the football equivalent of the WWE where the result is decided before the event. I believe that many others feel the same way and the easiest way for our chairmen, who for the most part treat us with utter contempt, to have football played in nearly empty stadiums is to ignore the overwhelming opinion of fans as expressed so excellentlly on this thread. The notion that we cannot survive unless we vote to maintain an institution who have been liquidated from spending sums of money they never could afford to finance, thus allowing them to both buy players of an ability they could never have aspired to and also weaken direct opponents in the process to preserve a TV deal is absolutely ridiculous. The game can and will survive and I for one believes flourish without them. Initiatives like imaginative ticket pricing plus a league structure that allows fixtures against traditional rivals could well increase crowds and subsequently revenues if properly marketed. Rangers or whatever the newco is called should be made to apply along with Spartans etc. to try to get into SFL 3. This should be their only possible route back in, If the SFA do what they should and suspend them then it will be a long time before any reincarnation of Rangers play senior football again and in all honesty our game will become much healthier. On a final point any attempt to sell the assets to green must surely be up to legal challenge as in no way does this maximise the return to creditors . The liquidator must have a duty to prevent this . As for all the journalists saying that Rangers must be kept in the SPL my message is do your job properly rather than printing rubbish with absolutely no basis in fact. Time to accept that the succulent lamb has gone off. Welcome - decent first post that sums it up for me. Now. You're not another nurse are you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 It never takes much does it I don't know, does it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lithgierose Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Oh did I not say.. Have 3 older children aged 26, 25 and 23.. You seem excited thinking my 11 year old is a mother.. you are actually scary.. are you a paedophile..Passing you details to police hope the f**k the spelling on your nursing reports are of a better standard than on here ffs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Maybe it has already been mentioned,but will numbers 3-5 no longer need to come into play.As these were punishments for the oldco...and as they will no longer exist i can't see how the SFA can bring actions against the new club. Sanctions for a newco,yes Punishment for the oldco,no. Isn't it the case that if you transfer the OldCo over to NewCo, you transfer the sanctions over as well? NewCo just means they aren't accountable for any financial wrongdoing, IE the BTC, but can still be punished for EBTs and Double contracts in a sporting sense. I'm sure I read this, apologies if I'm wrong. Mentioned, yes it's been mentioned about 100 times. The perceived 'wisdom' (and on this occasion I think it is correct) is that a condition of SPL/SFA membership for the newco is that sanctions/investigations will carry over. There'd certainly have to be some pretty big questions if Newco could transfer the rights (membership of SFA/participation of SPL/etc.) but not the responsibilities (including any punishments). Transfer achieves continuity of participation - that's why it's desirable. That should include continuity of punishments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Make sure and tell them he's from Magrathea. ...and I like fjords. Is there still a 28 day "cooling off period" after the CVA is rejected tomorrow and, if so, does this mean it does not become final (and Ranger won't "die") until then? That would be 12th of July then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madeirabhoy Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 The CoS's role was to help The SFA's panel interpret its own rules since it was incapable of doing so itself. The CoS obviously agreed that Rangers had broken SFA rules but declared that the tribunal was incompetent in their choice of punishment. From a selfish PoV this may backfire and we get a harsher punishment. There may well be pressure from the SFA panel from FIFA and we could be even more royally fucked than we are now. However, FIFA firmly believe that they are above the law and beyond scrutiny. Indeed, FIFA lickspittles use terms such as 'civil courts' in pejorative terms. You'll have seen that on this thread, For sane people a civil court is a good thing. It means that there is some sort of accountability and pressure on the SFA to adhere to its own processes. Any idea that 'It's a private club so we can do what we like' just flies in the face of common justice. but thats where the law and common justice dont always meet. the idea that the last guy to decide something must be right.... 3 independent guys, none of them judges mind you, but 1 a top qc read those rules and thought they were allowed to create their own punishment. 3 other independent guys, one of them a judge, read the rules and agreed. 1 guy, a judge of no greater importance or experience or reputation, disagreed. result, 6 1 to team yay and yet team nay wins. of course the SFA could have appealed the CoS judgement, and by the law of averages, bearing in mind 6 people have said yay and 1 nay, one could guess they would have won, but that would also break FIFA guidelines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caff Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 1339625262[/url]' post='6333342']You should never be among children.. Never said I was female??lol.. Whatever.. Your a groomer.. And you're a zoomer! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I don't know, does it? Say what you've got to say or FO 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 A cheery wee tune for all our fans of King Billy to repalce yir gallus anthems on the 12th July. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Don't you think it is both a business and a football punishment? I would argue that a transfer embargo is a restraint of trade issue as well as a footballing punishment.. The company wasn't restrained in anyway. They were still able to sign new players to work as footballers - they just weren't allowed to register them with the SFA. Anyway, he issue wasn't about contracts but about interpretation. Rangers used Scotland's civil court to help the SFA interpret its own rules as the SFA couldn't do so on it's own. This should be seen as a service to football. The SFA didn't impose the punishment - it was impose and then upheld by two independent panels, each of which contained a judge. The only thing the legal case proved was that one judge disagreed with the other two. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kildog Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 It doesn't all fall apart. The SFA panel was incompetent. Why was it wrong for the CoS to agree this? OK so it may cause 'Old Rangers's greater problems but why was it wrong for us to use the CoS for arbitration? The contract issue is a little different. I have a notice period in my contract (like most people) and 'cooling off period' wherein I can't work for competitive companies for 12 months. This isn't that different to a football club. Anyway, he issue wasn't about contracts but about interpretation. Rangers used Scotland's civil court to help the SFA interpret its own rules as the SFA couldn't do so on it's own. This should be seen as a service to football. Sounds like cutting off your face, to spite your face. I prefer Ranger's latest service to football: going bust!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Teebear post pics of your kids, I want to have sex with them all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 You should never be among children.. Never said I was female??lol.. Whatever.. Your a groomer.. If you're trolling, its been decent. If you're not - you're un-be-leeeev-able. :lol: :lol: :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 ...and I like fjords. Is there still a 28 day "cooling off period" after the CVA is rejected tomorrow and, if so, does this mean it does not become final (and Ranger won't "die") until then? That would be 12th of July then? They'll only spin it to being the rightful day of their reformation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 BOLLOX - Ranjurs had an option to take it to arbitration simply by telling SFA they were taking it to CAS. You intentionally broke the agreement by taking the matter to a Civil Court. An agreement you signed-up to. No matter how many times you say the same shite it doesn't make the truth less truthful That really doesn't matter. Why is football so fucking precious? Why are you yet another 'civi court' lickspittle? The SFA have a process and the Court of Session - with no football bias or prejudice - found that process lacking. This should be something we all celebrate. The bad thing for Rangers may well be expulsion. The good thing for sane people is that football authorities are held to account. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 So funny.. last post after I report your fellow poster for saying my 11 year old was a mother.. The administrators want to take there job seriously I think you need to re-read. He simply didn't say that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slartibartfast Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 You should never be among children.. Never said I was female??lol.. Whatever.. Your a groomer.. Where did I mention whether or not you were female? FFS - it appears that you can't read either. Groomer??? Sorry, I don't work with dogs - a few hounds, maybe, but no dogs. As I said, f**k off Thicko Dicko. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Teebear post pics of your kids, I want to have sex with them all. ^^^^tarrier IMO 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.