Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Kyle A]

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

You're asking for it a bit though, choosing a favourite cheating Hun's name as your username.

My ma chose that. Back in the 80's before lanky laff was thought of.

[joe breezy]

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...wsCategoryID=1

Stewart Regan, Scottish FA Chief Executive:


"In light of Tuesday’s decision by Lord Glennie at the Court of Session, it is necessary to clarify the position of the Scottish FA in relation to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on Rangers FC.
"Football must always operate within the law of the land. None the less, it is regrettable that a member club has sought recourse for a football disciplinary matter through increasingly costly civil court action.
"The right of appeal is now open to the Scottish FA through the Court of Session. However, by so doing, the very principles on which the Scottish FA - and, for that matter, UEFA and FIFA – are founded, namely football disciplinary matters being dealt with within its own jurisdiction, would be fundamentally compromised.

"Therefore, it is our intention to accede to Lord Glennie’s request and refer the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal, which will consider the remaining sanctions open to it. Details of a new hearing date will be confirmed in early course.

"The Scottish FA is bound – as are all other decision-making bodies in this country – by the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the court under Scots Law. The Scottish FA’s Senior Counsel represented to the Court of Session that it had no jurisdiction with reference to Article 5.1(b) and (c) of the Scottish FA’s Articles and Articles 4(2), 62(1), 63(1), 63(2) and 64(2) of the FIFA Statutes. This representation was rejected by Lord Glennie, who considered that the provisions of the FIFA statutes and the provisions of the Scottish FA Articles did not oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts to deal with questions of the powers open to the tribunal.

"It is important to reiterate that the additional sanction of a registration embargo was imposed by an independent Judicial Panel chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway.
"That in itself vindicates the robustness of the Judicial Panel Protocol, which has been questioned in hackneyed comment in certain quarters this week. It should be noted that two vastly experienced Supreme Court Judges, Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie, arrived at diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same issue.

"With our Annual General Meeting taking place on Wednesday, June 6, it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the Articles of Association."

[CropleyWasGod]

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

CWG - although not often wrong....you are

SFA were having an emergency meeting today to discuss response to CoS action

What do I know ? I get all my info from Hibs.net!

no smilies on mobile...insert Homer

[snooky]

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

This was from follow follow and posted on pie and bovril. First hun post I have seen with proper grammer.


Dear all non-Bears,
It has come to our attention that you are upset that our fight with the SFA may lead to Scotland and Scottish teams being prevented from playing in International or European matches.
We would just like to offer our sincerest, most heartfelt declaration of how sorry we are
No, not about it happening; about the fact that we have somehow managed to convey the wholly inaccurate impression that we give a fuck what happens to your paedophile club/pishy wee provincial side or national team.This is entirely our fault, and we promise to ensure there is no repeat of such behaviour. With that in mind, please take this as the completely definitive, unequivocal statement it is meant as. We couldn't give the first pull of a toss about you, never have and never will

Go fuck yourself,

The Rangers Support

Now there's a nice wee hand-out sheet for the other SPL members when it comes to 'voting' time.

[Hibs Class]

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

Some movement from today's emergency meeting?

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont
SFA chief exec Stewart Regan says they'll abide by Lord Glennie ruling and refer Rangers sanction back to Appellate Tribunal




I'm not sure where this leaves the whole situation. FIFA might not be happy. The new Tribunal ruling can either go too severe or too lenient as far as I'm concerned.

I don't believe any sanction could be too severe. Expulsion may be harsh but it would hardly be undeserved and if that was to be the case they would only have themselves to blame.

[HibeeMG]

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

I don't believe any sanction could be too severe. Expulsion may be harsh but it would hardly be undeserved and if that was to be the case they would only have themselves to blame.

In hindsight I didn't explain that properly. I also don't think there is a severe enough sanction for them.

I think they will believe there is no middle ground available to them. The fear is that they will then default to the lower punishment.

[Onion]

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

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...wsCategoryID=1

Stewart Regan, Scottish FA Chief Executive:


"In light of Tuesday’s decision by Lord Glennie at the Court of Session, it is necessary to clarify the position of the Scottish FA in relation to the disciplinary sanctions imposed on Rangers FC.
"Football must always operate within the law of the land. None the less, it is regrettable that a member club has sought recourse for a football disciplinary matter through increasingly costly civil court action.
"The right of appeal is now open to the Scottish FA through the Court of Session. However, by so doing, the very principles on which the Scottish FA - and, for that matter, UEFA and FIFA – are founded, namely football disciplinary matters being dealt with within its own jurisdiction, would be fundamentally compromised.

"Therefore, it is our intention to accede to Lord Glennie’s request and refer the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal, which will consider the remaining sanctions open to it. Details of a new hearing date will be confirmed in early course.

"The Scottish FA is bound – as are all other decision-making bodies in this country – by the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the court under Scots Law. The Scottish FA’s Senior Counsel represented to the Court of Session that it had no jurisdiction with reference to Article 5.1(b) and (c) of the Scottish FA’s Articles and Articles 4(2), 62(1), 63(1), 63(2) and 64(2) of the FIFA Statutes. This representation was rejected by Lord Glennie, who considered that the provisions of the FIFA statutes and the provisions of the Scottish FA Articles did not oust the supervisory jurisdiction of the courts to deal with questions of the powers open to the tribunal.

"It is important to reiterate that the additional sanction of a registration embargo was imposed by an independent Judicial Panel chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway.
"That in itself vindicates the robustness of the Judicial Panel Protocol, which has been questioned in hackneyed comment in certain quarters this week. It should be noted that two vastly experienced Supreme Court Judges, Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie, arrived at diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same issue.

"With our Annual General Meeting taking place on Wednesday, June 6, it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the Articles of Association."

The Huns taking the SFA to court is just the thrashings of a dying man. They MUST have known the general implications of this action and that it cut across FIFA rules (the Sion case was only last year). I also found it galling that the SFA have to pick up the cost of the Huns court action (i.e. the other clubs in Scotland have to foot the bill). The Huns are basically continuing to spend and play with other people's money. Had they lost the court action, their costs would have come out of what is left for creditors.

IMHO the Admins (D&P) are increasingly playing with fire. If they carry along this course their behaviour will come under legal scrutiny and might well end up having to pay compensation to the creditors for malpractice. D&P are risking their whole future trying to save a condemned and contemptible institution.

[Onion]

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

After what seems like months non-stop spouting the Hun Apologist line, he appears to have finally seen at least part of the opposing argument. Better late than never, but it remains the case that his overall performance has been abysmal. Has brought the SPL into disrepute by his 'leadership'.

The football authorities, politicians and media are all Hun apologists who were all **** scared of upsetting them. However, FIFA/UEFA have now given them the perfect escape hatch out of their predicament. You watch over the next few days as the press, SFA and SPL all start to turn against the Huns, start talking about fair play & sporting integrity as if this has been the main thing all along... The Huns (and Newhuns) days are numbered because FIFA/UEFA have intervened and IMHO the chances of them having to start again in the 3rd div has increased enormously

[StevieC]

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

Some movement from today's emergency meeting?

SFA chief exec Stewart Regan says they'll abide by Lord Glennie ruling and refer Rangers sanction back to Appellate Tribunal

I reckon that Rangers, especially Green and D&P, could now be seriously worried. They have backed the SFA into a corner where the same Appeal Committee (that had said they had "considered" expulsion based on the seriousness) have not only been overuled but also been classed as inept.

I reckon they will be unlikely to fine, and suspension from a cup (they are hardly likely to win anyway) for league misdemeanours seems unsuitable.

That only leaves suspension or expulsion .. both of which will see the immediate liquidation of Rangers and the formation of a NewCo.

[Just Alf]

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

In hindsight I didn't explain that properly. I also don't think there is a severe enough sanction for them.

I think they will believe there is no middle ground available to them. The fear is that they will then default to the lower punishment.

That's bang on what I was thinking..... I'm desperately hoping it going to go something like.....

1) wag finger, you naughty boys etc = too lenient
2) a wee fine = too lenient
3) a bigger fine = too lenient
4) lets give em an embargo thingy... it's cool they did it to themselves a few seasons ago and it'll look good = oh bugger can't use that now
5) punt them out the league for a bit = hmm too heavy maybe?.... go back to 4) .. oh wait we cant use that can we? why? and who caused the situation? .... hmmmmm.. so they did... so they've essentially set their own punishment then... sorted.... has to be 5 then



Reality is probably gonna be 3)

[Paisley Hibby]

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

In hindsight I didn't explain that properly. I also don't think there is a severe enough sanction for them.

I think they will believe there is no middle ground available to them. The fear is that they will then default to the lower punishment.

Yes, that's my fear too. Especially as the Independent and then the Appeal Panels have already said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe. They are going to get away with this I'm afraid.

[Paisley Hibby]

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

I reckon that Rangers, especially Green and D&P, could now be seriously worried. They have backed the SFA into a corner where the same Appeal Committee (that had said they had "considered" expulsion based on the seriousness) have not only been overuled but also been classed as inept.

I reckon they will be unlikely to fine, and suspension from a cup (they are hardly likely to win anyway) for league misdemeanours seems unsuitable.

That only leaves suspension or expulsion .. both of which will see the immediate liquidation of Rangers and the formation of a NewCo.

Then maybe that gives Green what he really wants - a Newco without facing the wrath of the Bears. He can blame the SFA for it.

[StevieC]

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

Especially as the Independent and then the Appeal Panels have already said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe.

That was before Rangers stuck two fingers up at them, publicly ridiculed them through the courts (making them out to be inept) and then topped it off by making them pay the courts for the "privilege"!

I'm not so sure they'll be thinking it's "too severe" the second time around.

[HibbyRod]

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

That was before Rangers stuck two fingers up at them, publicly ridiculed them through the courts (making them out to be inept) and then topped it off by making them pay the courts for the "privilege"!

I'm not so sure they'll be thinking it's "too severe" the second time around.

This.

Also, with FIFA/UEFA monitoring things, surely the SFA have to be seen acting decisively with this or face their wrath?

[WindyMiller]

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

Then maybe that gives Green what he really wants - a Newco without facing the wrath of the Bears. He can blame the SFA for it.

I think if they tried that they wouldn't get enough votes of acceptance from the other clubs.

[StevieC]

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

Then maybe that gives Green what he really wants - a Newco without facing the wrath of the Bears. He can blame the SFA for it.

He wont get the NewCo, that's if he even sticks around. His bid had conditions and suspension, or expulsion, from the league would not meet those conditions.

D&P will either be immediately removed for the liquidation process or told to sell the assets to an open market. There is no way that they would be allowed to sell Rangers (lock, stock and barrel) for the £5.5m quoted. I think that Kennedy and the Blue Knights would contest the £5.5m sale .. probably through the courts, which seems to be the way of things at the moment.

[Onion]

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

That's bang on what I was thinking..... I'm desperately hoping it going to go something like.....

1) wag finger, you naughty boys etc = too lenient
2) a wee fine = too lenient
3) a bigger fine = too lenient
4) lets give em an embargo thingy... it's cool they did it to themselves a few seasons ago and it'll look good = oh bugger can't use that now
5) punt them out the league for a bit = hmm too heavy maybe?.... go back to 4) .. oh wait we cant use that can we? why? and who caused the situation? .... hmmmmm.. so they did... so they've essentially set their own punishment then... sorted.... has to be 5 then



Reality is probably gonna be 3)

And how do they explain that to FIFA who are likely looking for a INCREASED punishment for taking this to open court ? Anything less than the original penalty will be seen as a victory for the Huns and send a message to all and sundry that you can take the football authorities to court and end up better off. That's not going to happen - FIFA/UEFA simply can't allow that

[down-the-slope]

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

I reckon that Rangers, especially Green and D&P, could now be seriously worried. They have backed the SFA into a corner where the same Appeal Committee (that had said they had "considered" expulsion based on the seriousness) have not only been overuled but also been classed as inept.

I reckon they will be unlikely to fine, and suspension from a cup (they are hardly likely to win anyway) for league misdemeanours seems unsuitable.

That only leaves suspension or expulsion .. both of which will see the immediate liquidation of Rangers and the formation of a NewCo.

Big differences though - without knowing the fine details of articles it has to be said - Suspension to me means you could return....expulsion surely means you have no league share to 'transfer' to a newCo....

[jgl07]

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

Yes, that's my fear too. Especially as the Independent and then the Appeal Panels have already said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe. They are going to get away with this I'm afraid.

There is a simple solution.

The SFA change the transfer ban to a one year exclusion from the SFA Cup.

Then a new charge is raised for taking the SFA to the Courts and suspend them for one year.

This will satisfy the Courts, FIFA, UEFA, and everyone bar the Huns.

The subsequent vacancy in SFL3 will be filled before Rangers are able to organize a team to apply.

They will then be stuck on the outside even after their ban is up.

With no automatic relegation or re-election from the SFL, Rangers would be dependant on a restructuring to get back in.

[Just Alf]

Stewart M. Regan‏@StewartRegan

Some very strange reactions to our press statement tonight. To summarise in bite-sized chunks....

1. Decision to go back to appeal body who will consider remaining sanctions open to them.

2. No appeal will be made to a civil court for a football matter

3. Two Supreme Court Judges had different opinions on the same point

4. The Judicial Process was never questioned, simply which sanction was selected. Judges had different opinions on what was allowed

5. A new hearing will take place at the earliest opportunity

also says.....

Stewart M. Regan‏@StewartRegan

@THE_TBK We are in consultation with FIFA at present.


he's actually giving as good as he's getting and mosy of the guff is coming from Rankgers so their butts are maybe starting to squeak

[Just Alf]

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

And how do they explain that to FIFA who are likely looking for a INCREASED punishment for taking this to open court ? Anything less than the original penalty will be seen as a victory for the Huns and send a message to all and sundry that you can take the football authorities to court and end up better off. That's not going to happen - FIFA/UEFA simply can't allow that

Onions normally give me gyp..... you, my very fine Onion have just made me feel a whole lot better!

[jgl07]

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

Big differences though - without knowing the fine details of articles it has to be said - Suspension to me means you could return....expulsion surely means you have no league share to 'transfer' to a newCo....

That is SPL terminology.

If Rangers are suspended by the SFA they cannot function as a football club. Their place in the SPL will be taken by Dundee. After the ban is up, they will get an SFA licence but will not automatically resume a place in the SPL or for that matter the SFL.

The best league place they might acheive is the South of Scotland League.

[TheEastTerrace]

Watching Donkey Doncaster's interview - now for the last three months, all we've heard about is how Rangers are imperative for the SPL to maximise its commercial potential. Although he refutes to speculate on a league without Rangers, that drum appears to have ceased being banged by Donkey, especially in this interview. There's almost an acceptance of 'we are where we are' and will deal with the outcome when it comes to it. Just get the sense the EBTs and dual contracts may have him clambering back down on the 'we must have Rangers' mantra.

[Paisley Hibby]

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

That was before Rangers stuck two fingers up at them, publicly ridiculed them through the courts (making them out to be inept) and then topped it off by making them pay the courts for the "privilege"!

I'm not so sure they'll be thinking it's "too severe" the second time around.

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

[Paisley Hibby]

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

There is a simple solution.

The SFA change the transfer ban to a one year exclusion from the SFA Cup.

Then a new charge is raised for taking the SFA to the Courts and suspend them for one year.

This will satisfy the Courts, FIFA, UEFA, and everyone bar the Huns.

The subsequent vacancy in SFL3 will be filled before Rangers are able to organize a team to apply.

They will then be stuck on the outside even after their ban is up.

With no automatic relegation or re-election from the SFL, Rangers would be dependant on a restructuring to get back in.

That would be sweet

[bighairyfaeleith]

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

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

They have, rangers have brought the game into disrepute again by taking the SFA to a civil court, so they have the next charge sitting waiting.

[hibs0666]

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

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

The judgement also said that the other punishments were too lenient so I think it's back to square 1.

[Paisley Hibby]

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

They have, rangers have brought the game into disrepute again by taking the SFA to a civil court, so they have the next charge sitting waiting.

I hope so - but we will first have to see Rangers getting off with a lesser punishment for the more serious offences committed under Craig Whyte (which the Panel said were right up there with match fixing).

[MyJo]

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

If only that was right! From my knowledge of legal processes I would say that the next SFA Appeal Panel can't use Rangers' legal challenge to justify what punishment to give. If they did, that would leave the SFA wide open to another legal challenge. All the Panel can do is go back and look at the original offence. They then have to decide which of the penalties specified in the SFA rule book is the right one. The problem is that the original panel said that suspension/expulsion would be too severe and the appeal panel agreed with that. So they would need to have a VALID justification for changing their mind. Rangers legal challenge does not give them that justification I'm afraid.

Having said all that, I'd hope they CAN come up with a new bomb proof justification for expulsion and get it right up them!!

The transfer embargo was decided on as a halfway house between other options considered "not severe enough" and "severe enough to jeapordise rangers ability to survive as a football club". The charges against the. Have not changed and there is no option of meeting in the middle any more so the appeals panel already decided that the lesser punishment was not severe enough which means by refusing the transfer embargo the next logical step is to apply the penalty that is available to them that is severe enough to fit the crime but carries with it implications for rangers survival, which the original panel considered but pulled back from to actually do rangers a favour.

[Paisley Hibby]

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

The transfer embargo was decided on as a halfway house between other options considered "not severe enough" and "severe enough to jeapordise rangers ability to survive as a football club". The charges against the. Have not changed and there is no option of meeting in the middle any more so the appeals panel already decided that the lesser punishment was not severe enough which means by refusing the transfer embargo the next logical step is to apply the penalty that is available to them that is severe enough to fit the crime but carries with it implications for rangers survival, which the original panel considered but pulled back from to actually do rangers a favour.

You're right, the lack of a "halfway house" punishment in the rules has caused the problem. However, it will be a difficult argument for the Panel to say that they are going to punish Rangers more harshly than they think is justified because the rules don't allow them to punish appropriately. Taking it to an extreme, it's like saying to a convicted murderer that we think jailing you for life is appropriate but because the rules don't allow us to do that. we will have to hang you instead. So I think they may have to go to one of the lesser punishments instead but I hope I'm wrong.