Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[VickMackie]

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

Then why put that clause in?

It gives him something to bargain with now. They can drop that clause and endear themselves to the fans and sticking it up to the SFA at the same time.

[joe breezy]

Doncaster and Regan are both saying the right things.

These are legal situations and have to be dealt with in this way. No emotions, no self preference (although clearly Doncaster was preferring to keep the Huns in the SPL a few weeks ago) simply stating the facts and the rules.

The SFA have only got 3 punishments left; suspension, expulsion or a Scottish Cup ban. They won't be looking at lessening the penalty so suspension is a real possibility.

[Just Alf]

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

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

I've also shared that "Dear non bears" letter with him! :-)

[greenginger]

Has the judge given any reason as to why he thinks the signing ban was not competant and covered by " any other sanction " clause ?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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.

The SPL decided the other day NOT to have any fixed penalties for a Newco situation. Each case will be decided on its individual merits.

They DID decide to have fixed penalties for new administrations.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

Has the judge given any reason as to why he thinks the signing ban was not competant and covered by " any other sanction " clause ?

No, but he did sign the verdict "Chucky R. La."

[Just Alf]

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

The SPL decided the other day NOT to have any fixed penalties for a Newco situation. Each case will be decided on its individual situation.

The DID decide to have fixed penalties for new administrations.

One bit I liked in the ND interview was when discussing that he made a wee slip.....

it was words to the effect "Any Newco wanting entry into SPL will now be voted on by all the teams rather than the board so it's the teams that will oppose...err... decide on a per occasion basis"

made me wonder..... probably a load of tosh and nothing in it but at least I can dream!

[Caversham Green]

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!!

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

[SurferRosa]

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

I've also shared that "Dear non bears" letter with him! :-)

This was a comment posted in the Sun and sums up exactly what they think.. you might want to share this wee titbit with him aswell Alf...

" John Knox A one year ban from the Scottish cup is all we are getting...Debt free...Transfer embargo dealt with...The future is bright..Thanks Tax Payers...lol "




Yep, BRITISH tax payers.....they`ll sing the songs and wave the flags, shout about " the Queens 11 " and all the while stick two fingers up at the country they profess to love....w*****s.

[BarneyK]

Heard him (Doncaster) on the radio this morning talking about Ghandi not passing a fit-and-proper test to own an SPL club. Can anyone elaborate on the point he was making, and/or the substance he was ingesting?

[JeMeSouviens]

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

Heard him (Doncaster) on the radio this morning talking about Ghandi not passing a fit-and-proper test to own an SPL club. Can anyone elaborate on the point he was making, and/or the substance he was ingesting?

The point was that if you make a hard and fast rule that nobody with a criminal conviction could be deemed fit and proper person to own a football club, then Gandhi would have failed the test.

[PatHead]

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

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

Personally I don't think FIFA would accept this. The bottom line is that Rangers took the SFA to court and crossed that line. They have to be punished for that or other clubs could follow suit to make a point. I think it all came down to posturing by Rangers and it has backfired big style. They will still need to be hit with a "suitable" penalty in the eyes of FIFA.

[stokesmessiah]

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

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

This is think is pretty much spot on as to how it will play out.

[BarneyK]

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

The point was that if you make a hard and fast rule that nobody with a criminal conviction could be deemed fit and proper person to own a football club, then Gandhi would have failed the test.

As indeed would (have) Nick Leeson. I must say I'm not au fait with Ghandi's history, but am I correct in thinking his arrest were never for matters of financial impropriety. In which case, surely context is the defining factor.

[PatHead]

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

As indeed would (have) Nick Leeson. I must say I'm not au fait with Ghandi's history, but am I correct in thinking his arrest were never for matters of financial impropriety. In which case, surely context is the defining factor.

Think the point was that it was people who have criminal convictions and there was no financial aspect in the rules.

[stokesmessiah]

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=221710

Interesting thread on the bears den...amazing how some people react to what are some decent comments. I have noticed that if anyone dares to say anything on that website that might be remotely sensible and not quite the party line the instant response has something to do with kids and bheasts.

[JeMeSouviens]

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

As indeed would (have) Nick Leeson. I must say I'm not au fait with Ghandi's history, but am I correct in thinking his arrest were never for matters of financial impropriety. In which case, surely context is the defining factor.

Yes, which is the point Doncaster was trying to make, I think.

[Caversham Green]

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

Personally I don't think FIFA would accept this. The bottom line is that Rangers took the SFA to court and crossed that line. They have to be punished for that or other clubs could follow suit to make a point. I think it all came down to posturing by Rangers and it has backfired big style. They will still need to be hit with a "suitable" penalty in the eyes of FIFA.

You could be right - I rather hope you are - but I suspect what FIFA would really want to see is the SFA standing firm against the interference of the law courts and ignoring this ruling does just that. If RFC do have to be punished maybe an admonishment or some sort of suspended sentence (e.g. another signing embargo if they transgress again) would fit the bill in the cicumstances.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

You could be right - I rather hope you are - but I suspect what FIFA would really want to see is the SFA standing firm against the interference of the law courts and ignoring this ruling does just that. If RFC do have to be punished maybe an admonishment or some sort of suspended sentence (e.g. another signing embargo if they transgress again) would fit the bill in the cicumstances.

Do the SFA have the power to just confirm the embargo? That would satisfy FIFA, but what wider implications might it have?

[Paisley Hibby]

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

You're making some valid points here PH. I think the strategy should be to persuade Rangers to accept the original sanction.

This boils down to a disagreement between two high-ranking judges. 'Our' judge believes that the sanction was valid, 'their' judge believes it wasn't. We can't appeal because our constitution doesn't allow it, but we still believe the sanction should stand, therefore it does. They are now fully aware that the Court of Session is not an avenue that is open to them, so if this case finds its way back there in any form expulsion will follow. There is already a futher charge pending relating to their actions in taking the original case to the CoS but that will be dropped on acceptance of the sanction. Given the choice between a transfer embargo and expulsion I think they would back down.

Compromise is not always wrong.

You make good points too CG. However, the problem is that the transfer embargo may be a deal breaker for Green. Also, the SFA have FIFA breathing down their necks and a big legal bill because of Rangers' court challenge. The SFA could decide to make a new SEPARATE charge against Rangers for making the legal challenge as that is a clear breach of the rules. The signs seem to be that they are not planning to do that, maybe because there's no point fining them as they will not get the money anyway. It's a complete and utter mess.

[PatHead]

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

You could be right - I rather hope you are - but I suspect what FIFA would really want to see is the SFA standing firm against the interference of the law courts and ignoring this ruling does just that. If RFC do have to be punished maybe an admonishment or some sort of suspended sentence (e.g. another signing embargo if they transgress again) would fit the bill in the cicumstances.

Before they took SFA to court I was definately of the opinion that Rangers would get away with it as they would wriggle out blaming the Old Board and Craig Whyte. Since they took the action though there has been a total change in press outlook at the situation and any sympathy they may have had has fallen away. Even the press seem to believe that Scottish Foootball is bigger than Rangers and Rangers have overstepped the mark in putting Scottish football at risk. How will they all get their jollys off to Euros, meetings in 5 star resorts around the world, etc? Even Jim Traynor, Chick Young, Billy Dodds etc have been defeaning by their silence.


Just hope I am right and its Div 3 here they come!

[Mon Dieu4]

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

http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=221710

Interesting thread on the bears den...amazing how some people react to what are some decent comments. I have noticed that if anyone dares to say anything on that website that might be remotely sensible and not quite the party line the instant response has something to do with kids and bheasts.

that website has become my guilty pleasure, they are unreal and i thought you could get done for posting views like that today, love the fact they are in deep trouble but still have a thread on what flag are you flying for the jubilee Haha

[BarneyK]

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

Yes, which is the point Doncaster was trying to make, I think.

Fair enough. I tend to drift away after about 30 seconds of one of his speeches.

[joe breezy]

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

Do the SFA have the power to just confirm the embargo? That would satisfy FIFA, but what wider implications might it have?

They have the power to do it but it would go against the Court of Session, which still holds some sway, whether or not clubs should go that way, therefore there needs to be another (stronger probably) punishment meted out

[green glory]

FIFA putting pressure on the SFA. Should be a statement today.

https://twitter.com/janelewissport/s...91515071303681

[joe breezy]

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

that website has become my guilty pleasure, they are unreal and i thought you could get done for posting views like that today, love the fact they are in deep trouble but still have a thread on what flag are you flying for the jubilee Haha

I enjoyed looking on the mutants for a while, now they bore me and I just want them exterminated

[CallumLaidlaw]

#Fifa confirm that they've spoken to the #Sfa over the #Rangers situation. Talks will continue and they hope to release a statement today.

[Caversham Green]

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

Do the SFA have the power to just confirm the embargo? That would satisfy FIFA, but what wider implications might it have?

That's the crux of the matter - the SFA do think they have the power, but could only test that by appealing against the decision and that goes against their constitution. The key therefore is to get Rangers to accept the sanction without it going back to the civil courts. If Rangers don't complain the civil courts won't get involved again and we're back to self-regulation as it should be.

There is a danger that Rangers would raise a lawsuit (which I touched on earlier in the thread) but the threat of expulsion and consequent extinction, which is within the SFA's powers should be enough to prevent it. Surely even the Huns wouldn't be that thick.

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

You make good points too CG. However, the problem is that the transfer embargo may be a deal breaker for Green. Also, the SFA have FIFA breathing down their necks and a big legal bill because of Rangers' court challenge. The SFA could decide to make a new SEPARATE charge against Rangers for making the legal challenge as that is a clear breach of the rules. The signs seem to be that they are not planning to do that, maybe because there's no point fining them as they will not get the money anyway. It's a complete and utter mess.

I think whether the signing embargo is a deal breaker is Green's/D&P's/RFC's problem and it is for them to find a way round it, the SFA can't be seen to relent purely because of RFC's self-inflicted problems. As I see it, if the SFA is to retain any credibility their choice is stark - uphold the original sanction or expel/suspend RFC. Anything else would fatally damage the whole of Scottish football (assuming it is not already fatally damaged). Suspension would definitely destroy Rangers and is therefore too harsh for the original crime but it is undoubtedly within the SFA's powers, a transfer embargo would not destroy them despite what the various bluenose whingers claim, and has twice been deemed to be the correct sanction by independent panellists.

[JeMeSouviens]

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

[lapsedhibee]

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

In the Sion case, FIFA demanded that the original embargo on signing players should be upheld and therefore Sion were deducted 3 pts for every match the 6 players signed during that period played in.

In the Huns' case, the SFA have already said they are going to go back to the appellate tribunal and they will pick from one of the listed sanctions. You would imagine then that they would pick either the next most lenient sanction or the next most punitive.

Next most lenient: suspension from cup.

Next most punitive: suspension of membership.

The NML wouldn't satisfy FIFA's criterion that the original punishment be enforced whereas the NMP would. I think there's only one way for the tribunal to go.

This logic seems sound. Question next: How could it be in the interests of Craig Whyte, Duff & Duffer, or Green Charlie to have the Huns suspended? (I've listed three interested parties separately there, though as we know they may all turn out to be in cahoots.) The idea that suspension might trigger a desired liquidation without any of these three getting any blame won't wash now shirley, as it was Duff & Duffer's action which ensured that FIFA got involved?