Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

31-05-2012, 08:47 PM
MyJo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

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.
31-05-2012, 09:07 PM
Paisley Hibby

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyJo

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.
31-05-2012, 09:14 PM
EuanH78

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

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.

As far as I read the original decision it was not that the more severe punishments were not justified more that they would excessively inhibit the Huns ability to continue so they created a middle ground, almost doing them a favour. The Huns are just very, very stupid and conceited.
31-05-2012, 09:15 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

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.

There are now two crimes, though.

The first crime may well get the lesser sentence. But, the second... they would be justified in setting a tougher sentence for a repeat offence.
31-05-2012, 09:17 PM
Prof. Shaggy

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgl07

Rommel was a ardent supporter of Hitler for much of the war. True he did fall out when he considered that that Hitler's blunders were going to cost Germany the war.

The arch-Nazi historian David Irving considered Rommel to be the most-Nazi of all the High Command.

That's only 'cos he's an apologist for Guderian. :agree:
31-05-2012, 09:37 PM
stantonhibby

@StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic.

so that has to be a fine ( already done) suspension or expulsion ?
31-05-2012, 09:40 PM
stokesmessiah

Quote:

Originally Posted by stantonhibby

@StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic.

so that has to be a fine ( already done) suspension or expulsion ?

:agree:
31-05-2012, 09:42 PM
Mon Dieu4

Quote:

Originally Posted by stantonhibby

@StewartRegan the Appeal body will have to select a sanction from the identified list without being able to be pragmatic.

so that has to be a fine ( already done) suspension or expulsion ?

Was the fine they got the maximum fine they could have received?
31-05-2012, 09:42 PM
stokesmessiah

Thought i would have a wee gander too see what they are saying on the dark side and found this little ditty..."indeed, ****** FIFA. They stole and monopolised football. a shower of ****in corrupt old ***** getting rich with under the table handshakes on the back of the game we all love. Maybe not in my lifetime, but 1 day the govermnets might just take football back. "

So if my memory serves me right they now dont need the SPL, SFA, Scottish Football, UEFA and FIFA. Do they know they are a football club???
31-05-2012, 09:44 PM
stokesmessiah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

Was the fine they got the maximum fine they could have received?

I have seen £1m being banded about but i am sure when they released their statement on why they had arrived at their decisions it said they had dished out the maximum fine, so in short...I dont know.
31-05-2012, 09:46 PM
PatHead

Quote:

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

I have seen £1m being banded about but i am sure when they released their statement on why they had arrived at their decisions it said they had dished out the maximum fine, so in short...I dont know.

Not a large fine anyway when you are only paying it at 3p in the £.
31-05-2012, 09:46 PM
Mon Dieu4

Quote:

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

I have seen £1m being banded about but i am sure when they released their statement on why they had arrived at their decisions it said they had dished out the maximum fine, so in short...I dont know.

That's what i thought as well, here's hoping
31-05-2012, 09:47 PM
StevieC

Quote:

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

So if my memory serves me right they now dont need the SPL, SFA, Scottish Football, UEFA and FIFA. Do they know they are a football club???

Most of them don't .. football is just something that goes on whilst they have a right old loyalist get-together.
31-05-2012, 09:48 PM
stokesmessiah

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4

That's what i thought as well, here's hoping

I wonder if £1m would be enough to deliver a big body blow to Charlie Greens plans for der hun.

Is it not also likely that Rangers will now face seperate charges for bringing the game into disrepute after taking it to the court of session?
31-05-2012, 09:53 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

I wonder if £1m would be enough to deliver a big body blow to Charlie Greens plans for der hun.

Is it not also likely that Rangers will now face seperate charges for bringing the game into disrepute after taking it to the court of session?

TBH, expulsion from the Cup would be the killer blow. It's one of the conditions of his bid that they are in every domestic competition, including the SPL, next season.

And, yes, as I understand it... the appeals body will re-hear the first charge, but there should be a second charge.
31-05-2012, 09:55 PM
Saorsa

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

TBH, expulsion from the Cup would be the killer blow. It's one of the conditions of his bid that they are in every domestic competition, including the SPL, next season.

And, yes, as I understand it... the appeals body will re-hear the first charge, but there should be a second charge.

good, they can ban them from the cup for the original charge and expel them for the second. :thumbsup:
31-05-2012, 09:57 PM
hibs0666

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

TBH, expulsion from the Cup would be the killer blow. It's one of the conditions of his bid that they are in every domestic competition, including the SPL, next season.

And, yes, as I understand it... the appeals body will re-hear the first charge, but there should be a second charge.

I don't think losing out on a cup game will bother the bloke greatly.
31-05-2012, 10:02 PM
stokesmessiah

Quote:

Originally Posted by hibs0666

I don't think losing out on a cup game will bother the bloke greatly.

Then why put that clause in?
31-05-2012, 10:03 PM
CropleyWasGod

Quote:

Originally Posted by hibs0666

I don't think losing out on a cup game will bother the bloke greatly.

It's fundamental to his offer.
31-05-2012, 10:06 PM
down-the-slope

Newsnight on now - the interviewer is behaving like a real trumpet and being pretty rude when N D is trying to answer the questions honestly....bit stupid
31-05-2012, 10:10 PM
stokesmessiah

Quote:

Originally Posted by down-the-slope

Newsnight on now - the interviewer is behaving like a real trumpet and being pretty rude when N D is trying to answer the questions honestly....bit stupid

I thought that too, trying to be a paxman.

He did ask one good question after summarising everything had happened....."Is the SPL fit for purpose?" I dont think it is.
31-05-2012, 10:21 PM
hibs0666

Quote:

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

It's fundamental to his offer.

It's not binding on D&P to chuck him out if the are emptied from the scottish cup - it will be green's decision and IMHO the loss of income from one Scottish Cup won't make a blind bit of difference. They don't do walking away remember, except from the debts that they rack up. Getting emptied from the SPL would be a different kettle of salmon.
31-05-2012, 10:28 PM
stokesmessiah

While SFA are now in consultation with FIFA over Rangers situation, my info is that SFA have not told Rangers new disciplinary proceedings have begun over their decision to go to Court of Session. That's not to say it won't happen, but it hasn't at this stage.

@BBCAlLamont
31-05-2012, 10:35 PM
Viva_Palmeiras

Quote:

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

I thought that too, trying to be a paxman.

He did ask one good question after summarising everything had happened....."Is the SPL fit for purpose?" I dont think it is.

They are pretty much demonstrating that.

Now here's a question I've been pondering - is that not then something Rangers can appeal to Court of Arbitration on or FIFA. It'd be akin to getting let off on a technicallity cos someone didn't do there job properly?

And given that Celtic are not anamoured or at time respectful of/with the Scottish football authorities ... Behind the scenes could they be looking to the future to get more amenable people in key posts?
31-05-2012, 10:36 PM
s.a.m

Apparently Stewart Regan is on Twitter, answering questions right, left and centre. I'm off to my bed, but it sounds worthwhile for those of you who do the Twitter thing.:aok:
31-05-2012, 10:43 PM
Spike Mandela

Quote:

Originally Posted by joe breezy

another Hun....save yourself from watching Newsnight...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18284888

poor Rangers, how unpleasant this administration process is...

Don't quite get his logic regards not discussing sanctions for a newco. He says we aren't faced with the proposition of a newco yet so didn't want to set fixed penalties. However they aren't faced with a new case of administration either but they are happy to cement new sanctions for any new case of administration.

I can only deduce from this that they don't want to set any fixed sanctions until after any Rangers newco transpires and they can be as leniant as they like.
31-05-2012, 10:44 PM
Hibrandenburg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andy74

Once a Hun always a Hun.

Oops, can I be arrested for that these days?

Only if Rommel makes a complaint.
31-05-2012, 10:56 PM
Cropley10

Nobody wants to pull the trigger. They're terminally ill but everyone knows all hell will let loose when the day finally comes and the Big Hoose closes.
31-05-2012, 11:00 PM
cabbageandribs1875

have the SFA forgot about the punishment for the sectarian singing in the game against killie at bigotbrox, over three months ago :confused: i think they have missed a great chance to hit rangers with a huge fine, that will teach them, knowing full well any fine would just go into the now famous 'pot' , fans would think that the SFA are big and hard and not cowards, and the buns could just laugh at not actually losing anything:rolleyes:

i also heard a rumour the greek government have asked for duff & phelps services, apparently they have a little debt as well
31-05-2012, 11:08 PM
silverhibee

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/05...6908-23880629/

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page