Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[down-the-slope]

That is just unbeleivable judgement.....(as mentioned an eminemt judge was on appeals panel)

Football wants its own rules until they don't suit...then go to law....SFA better get a grip of this pronto....

[Zondervan]

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...a-signing-ban/

[down-the-slope]

What would Celtic think if this gets Scotland kicked from Euro Comps......

[TheEastTerrace]

SPL embargo still stands though.

Do the SFA have the balls to follow through their strong judicial panel statements? And could we be now entering Sion territory?

[Mon Dieu4]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...a-signing-ban/

That's only cause they are still in admin, if they come out of it then they can sign players again

[Brando7]

Ban been lifted ffs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-18248766

[Benny Brazil]

[QUOTE=hibs0666;3249016]So the available punishments are:

• fine
• suspension
• expulsion from Scottish Cup
• termination of membership.

Have the SFA got the danglies for the battle?[/QUOTE]

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Saorsa]

They should now be kicked out.

[down-the-slope]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...a-signing-ban/

The Court of Session have found in Rangers' favour in a hearing against the Scottish FA over an enforced registration embargo
The matter will now be referred back to the governing body's appeals tribunal for a new hearing.
The judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to the Scottish FA to punish a club for bringing the game into disrepute.
Despite the ruling, Rangers are still unable to sign players as they are under a separate registration embargo imposed by the Scottish Premier League for being in administration.


Hmmm...But if they get their CVA...No administration and so they are free from debt and no sanction...

Grow some and punt them......

[Smidge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

SPL embargo still stands though.

Do the SFA have the balls to follow through their strong judicial panel statements? And could we be now entering Sion territory?

Going to court in the first place was the FC Sion territory.

Would be interested to see the full judgement, as I'm pretty sure the relevant SFA bye-laws were ambiguous enough to allow ANY punishment that the tribunal thought appropriate.

[JeMeSouviens]

That's a Craig Thomson of a decision and no mistake!

SFA panel has to decide between looking weaker than the Hibs midfield or growing a pair and following through the logic of their decision: suspension of membership.

Will it be the same 3 man panel that heard the previous appeal or do they rotate to the next 3?

[HibeeN]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

STV saying that transfer embargo stands due to SPL sanctions?

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/r...a-signing-ban/

Presumably this means that under SPL sanctions they are still banned from signing players until they exit administration, but after that they are free to do so. As opposed to being completely banned for 12 months.

[ScottB]

Seems worth posting this about FC Sion from its wiki page:

In 2008, controversy came to Sion when they signed Essam El-Hadary, leading to a two-year "registration period" ban for Sion from June 2009, and an international playing ban for El-Hadary for four months,^[3][4] due to El-Hadary still being under contract at his former club Al Ahly.^[5] FC Sion appealed this action, but the Federal Supreme Court of Switzerland confirmed the FIFA, DRC and CAS decisions in 2009 and 2010 respectively.^[6] However the lengthy legal battle (including the temporary reprieve), meant that the ban was only practically instituted first in the winter window of 2010–11 season.^[7]
Although gaining a place in the qualifying round of the 2011-12 Europa League by winning the previous season's Swiss Cup, Sion were excluded from the Europa League byUEFA after fielding ineligible players in their play-off victory over Celtic.^[8] On 2 September, the Swiss Football League rejected the registration of one more player, Brian Amofa.^[9]
On 30 September 2011, the SFL decided to provisionally qualify the six new signings, namely Stefan Glarner, Billy Ketkeophomphone, Mario Mutsch, Pascal Feindouno, José Gonçalves and Gabri García, to comply with the ongoing legal process.^[10] FC Sion also sued SFL and UEFA respectively in the Tribunal Cantonal de Valais and the Tribunal inVaud, however both actions were dismissed.^[11][12] The club's earlier appeal was dismissed by UEFA Appeals Body on 13 September.^[13] FC Sion also sued SFL and UEFA in CAS, but withdrew the former claim. The hearing of the latter claim was set on 24 November.^[14]
On 25 October, the Discipline Commission (fr: Commission de discipline) of SFL suspended all six players for five games.^[15] It was reported that each player filed their legal claim in civil court instead of using the Swiss FA and CAS "sports court" system, which the ban was requested by FIFA.^{[citation needed]} On 27 October, as a "provisional and super-provisional measures",^[16] UEFA invited FC Sion to a match schedule consultation once UEFA lost the legal battle.^[17]
On 31 October 2011, Sion sent a complaint to the European Commission.^[18] FIFA also won the legal battle in civil court in November. Previously the civil court of Martigny andSaint-Maurice (both city of Valais) ordered FIFA to confirm the signing of those six players on 3 August, a consequence of law suit brought out by the players. On 16 November, the FIFA and SFL appeal was upheld in the Valais canton court.^[19]
On 15 December, CAS upheld the complaints by UEFA, affirming its right to discipline Sion according to previous agreements. CAS also lifted the provisional measures ordered by the Tribunal Cantonal of Vaud (Cour civile) on 5 October 2011.^[20] After the ruling, FIFA threatened to suspend Swiss national and club teams from international competition if FC Sion were not appropriately penalized for its ostensible rules violations.^[21] In late December 2011, the Swiss Football Association complied with FIFA's demands and penalized Sion 36 standings points (based on how many matches ineligible players were involved), moving the club to last place in the league standings and putting the club at risk of relegation if the ruling stands.

[pentlando]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And without Ibrox the Rangers income stream immediately diminishes. Assuming that Ibrox will generate income for the next 20 years the stadium is worth only £200,000 per annum to the new owner as a revenue enabler. Total pish.

If Ibrox is removed Rangers income stream may only diminish slightly, as they could in theory play temporarily at Hampden or Celtic Park. Without Rangers, what use is Ibrox?? That's why the value drops so much. There is no way Ibrox or Murray Park could be of value in their current state so literally become bits of land with expensive demolition costs before they become valuable once more.

[Smidge]

This is worth a read on the sports law implications of Duff and Duffer's decision to go to court:

http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...-disaster.html

Interesting, as well, that it suggests they had a good chance of success.

[Gus Fring]

I can't see them expelling them. This is from the statement after the appeal was rejected

"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."

So they have already decided that the other sanctions were too severe. Looking at the available, I think the best we'll get is expulsion from the Scottish cup.

If its reheard again, I wonder if the BBC documentary and the revelations since then will have any effect on the decision?

[CallumLaidlaw]

Stv journo on twitter -

FIFA eyes now on Scottish FA to uphold their rulebook and punish Rangers for taking this matter to court.

FIFA said just before verdict passed that Scottish FA will be told to take action so club "withdraws its request from the ordinary courts".

FIFA insist Scottish FA must stop Rangers using law courts. FIFA also insist Scottish FA provides means for arbitration, which they didn't.

In a nutshell, the Scottish FA will already be in bother from FIFA for not upholding their statutes. More so if they don't punish Rangers.

[EuanH78]

Wow, just wow. So now what? UEFA/ FIFA get involved?

Is this proof the SFA cant govern their own member clubs?

Interesting times ahead I feel. I was also musing earlier that maybe Mad Vlad aint so mad after all, seems he just applied Rangers business model to Hearts. Circular loans and EBT's. If it's good for the goose and all that - no wonder he's pissed off at the media monkeys...

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the whole point, it enables that income, it doesn't generate that income itself, and is valued as such. It's a means to an end, the end being Rangers. Without Rangers playing at Ibrox, Ibrox itself is pretty much worthless as it is. Unless another similar size team (possibly NewCo Rangers) would want to use it in it's current state.

Glasgow City Council are committed to Ibrox for the 2014 Commonwealth Games for starters.

[ScottB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't see them expelling them. This is from the statement after the appeal was rejected

"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."

So they have already decided that the other sanctions were too severe. Looking at the available, I think the best we'll get is expulsion from the Scottish cup.

If its reheard again, I wonder if the BBC documentary and the revelations since then will have any effect on the decision?

The point is, do they consider the offence, which stated that only match fixing would have been worse, to be closer to the rejected as too severe kicking them out option, or just upping their fine / kicking them from the cup.


As with Scion, FIFA / UEFA weighed in when the Swiss failed to punish them in line with their offences. By the end of this, when everything is out in the open, the hope is that the same happens with Rangers.

[HibbyAndy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They should now be kicked out.

They most certainly should, But they wont.

[hibs0666]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can't see them expelling them. This is from the statement after the appeal was rejected

"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."

So they have already decided that the other sanctions were too severe. Looking at the available, I think the best we'll get is expulsion from the Scottish cup.

If its reheard again, I wonder if the BBC documentary and the revelations since then will have any effect on the decision?

But they also said that the other sanctions were too weak. This could run and run.

[green glory]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Stv journo on twitter -

FIFA eyes now on Scottish FA to uphold their rulebook and punish Rangers for taking this matter to court.

FIFA said just before verdict passed that Scottish FA will be told to take action so club "withdraws its request from the ordinary courts".

FIFA insist Scottish FA must stop Rangers using law courts. FIFA also insist Scottish FA provides means for arbitration, which they didn't.

In a nutshell, the Scottish FA will already be in bother from FIFA for not upholding their statutes. More so if they don't punish Rangers.

Which journo? So I can follow

[Saorsa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They most certainly should, But they wont.

I'd like and hope tae see UEFA/FIFA help make the decision for them by threatening the banning of both the National and club sides from all competitions.

[HibbyAndy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'd like and hope tae see UEFA/FIFA help make the decision for them by threatening the banning of both the National and club sides from all competitions.

100%

[Gus Fring]

Given that the sanction was not available to the SFA within the rules, surely the fact that taking the SFA to court isn't allowed in the rules either means that the SFA are under no obligation to pay any attention to the court of session? What would stop them from saying "Thanks for the advice wiggy, but with all due respect, beat it!"

Seems to me applying a sanction that "wasn't available" is exactly the same as starting a court case not being available?

So either the SFA can ignore it and show they have some balls, both to the public and UEFA. Or UEFA steps in like the proverbial headmaster and threatens to punish everyone unless the club responsible is dealt with accordingly?

[jgl07]

Sion won in the Swiss courts and look what happened there.

A 36-point deduction.

If the SFA take no action I can see UEFA/FIFA adopting a similar line.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Given that the sanction was not available to the SFA within the rules, surely the fact that taking the SFA to court isn't allowed in the rules either means that the SFA are under no obligation to pay any attention to the court of session? What would stop them from saying "Thanks for the advice wiggy, but with all due respect, beat it!"

...and I think this why the preferred way would have been to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

In other news, FIFA have finally woken up to the Rangers threat:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18244958

[CallumLaidlaw]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Which journo? So I can follow

@stvgrant

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Ive long suspected everything that's gone before was just the jockeying for positing buying time and that Rangers would pull a rabbit out the bag if not the football club separate from holding company (and bad man Whyte) or now as it appears - the incompetence of the scottish footballing authorities.

The game is a bogey and the authorities and regulators I've long criticised before all this mess have now shown themselves to be unfit to govern.

Give us our respect and game back. FIFA better step up to the plateon thisone - I'm not holding my breath.

Can't they see the link between the OF monopoly and the lack of talent pool for the Scottish national team. Bad enough k owing your team can only play for 3rd but allied to a national team team that is unlikely to qualify for a major tourney any time soon just where is it headed?