Irony behind robust SFA rules

The statement released by Duff and Phelps last night revealed the substance to the lobbying that had taken place since the original punishment handed out by the SFA judicial panel:

“The decision by the appellate tribunal to uphold the sanction, namely the suspension of registration of players for one year, is not competent in the view of the club and its legal advisers.

“Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal”.

The suspension of player registrations was not one of the suggested punishments on the menu for the judicial panel but the rules allowed them to vary from guidance and choose whatever punishment they believed appropriate.

The appeal correctly found that the judicial panel were not were not subject to an exhaustive list of possible punishments.  Duff and Phelps main hope was that the SFA rules were unclear and poorly constructed, as they were before an overhaul last year.

You don’t need to look too hard for the irony.

You can buy a hard copy of the new issue of CQN Magazine via Magcloud here.

The graphic below is just for a flick through, to read the magazine go here to it’s dedicated site.