Although Rangers won their case at the Court of Session today, they have the option not to serve the ruling on the SFA that its Judicial Panel’s 12 month ban on player registration is illegal. Winning the point in law might sound like a victory, but taking the Association to court breaks membership rules of the SFA, rules imposed on all associations by Fifa.
We will find out soon enough the reach of SFA president, Campbell Ogilvie, who was one of the recipients of an EBT which precipitated Rangers crisis.
Rangers are deep in Sion territory now. Either they walk away from this showdown, the SFA expel or suspend them from football, or Fifa will shortly remind the SFA of their duties when a member club takes action in the civil courts.
Campbell Ogilvie was born for this moment; it justifies him holding onto his position all these months despite being “heavily conflicted”, according to his chief executive. I do not expect this to end well.
Despite an independent judicial panel ruling against Rangers, there is no way the office holders at the SFA will expel Rangers, no matter what they do. They would rather jeopardise the Scotland national team and every other club’s European participation.
877 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- ...
- 24
- »
SFA-SPL= not fit for purpose!
archdeaconsbench on 29 May, 2012 at 17:20 said:
Forgive me if I’m missing something, but what legal recourse (if any) do the huns have if the SFA ignore todays ruling and keep the ban in place??
—–
CoAfS is the route they should have taken in the first place but as they went down the CoS route instead I think that the CoAfS route may now be a non-starter.
HH
/Bishop B
Is Ragen still in America – probably hasn’t seen the verdict yet
1 year Scottish cup ban, maybe not…….
Jim Delahunt @JimDelahunt
CVA 4.22.6. RFC has to be in all domestic leagues and competitions it currently in. Condition of CVA. If not, C.Green gets to buy for £5.5m
come on celtic to be rid of rangers forever ,start by ditching joint sponsership ,then tell sky thanks but no thanks .
Gincher67 on 29 May, 2012 at 17:16 said:
‘do you have a link?’
Yes.
canamalar
Because it doesn’t say “transfer ban” in black and white, – we we’re warned any Judge of a mind, could interpret it however he/she wished.
The important bit is, the ban stands and it’s over FIFA if the SFA don’t uphold, expel suspend, or further sanction.
the bold sammy joined the lord glennie no1 rsc yet ?
Big day for ‘The Rangers’ today. Graduated from ‘national embarrassment’ to full on ‘International sporting pariah’.
As a Larkhall man, I have seen this scenario so many times, we need to punish someone……. but we dont have the rule in place………..ok we will put a rule in place……….we cant punish the guy we wanted to punish (shame isnt it) ok the next guy to do wrong gets it, guess who?????
Sorry but if anybody really expects Justice on Rangers come and live in Larkhall for a year, that will teach you how this country works, or better ask the Jury in Edinburgh
Don’t forget special provision of SFA Articles of Association as set out in the secret addendum states ” none of the provisions of the aforementioned articles apply to Rangers FC whereas and however they so deem”
Silver Ciy Neil Lennon,
I was going to suggest, as I see you have already done, that we ought to take the SFA to court for loss of earnings, if we are expelled by FIFA, for inaction on the SFA’s part against thems. Since we were no longer under FIFA’s umbrella, their rules on noninvolvement in the civil courts would no longer apply.
Well at least it will involve FIFA/UEFA now on a matter of governing principile.
I’m starting to go off football to be honest.
Fishing, that sounds like a pleasant pastime, except for the fish of course.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire on 29 May, 2012 at 17:23 said:
Monaghan1900,
I seen someone asking for that info earlier, then low and behold Celtic Research post it.
So why wasnt rule 95 offered in court, by the sfa
————————–
That’s what I don’t get. It seems pretty clear cut to me but I read somewhere today that there was an argument in court to the effect that that rule was not one which applied in this case. I can’t find the judgement as it’s yet to be uploaded onto the Scottish Courts Administration website. It should become clearer when this is published.
What a bizarre thing to do – all they have done is make certain that their punishment will be even greater (even before FIFA become involved)…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18248766
Aidan O’Neill QC, for the football authorities, had argued that the tribunal sought to find a sanction which would fit the breach committed.
He said it was clearly thought that the fine was “simply not enough given the gravity of the issues here”.
He said that if their powers of penalty were restricted to sanctions such as suspension or expulsion then suspension would have to be looked at.
Mr O’Neill told the court that the paradox was the Dean’s argument could lead to greater sanction.
“Suspension would not just simply impose a transfer ban, but would stop any playing of friendly matches in the off-season,” he said.
“Suspension is a greater sanction than the targeted sanction of the transfer ban that was in fact imposed,” said the counsel.
He said the current sanction allowed Rangers to continue to trade and play.
SFA now say ‘oops’, will reduce their fine and ban the Huns cup for a massive couple of years (subject to appeal), and nothing to see here now, over to someone else to have the balls to deal with them
RobertTressell on 29 May, 2012 at 17:13 said:
I was wondering if the board/executive officers /whatever of the SFA are contracted or elected. Would those clubs likely to make it into Europe vote in employees that would deal appropriately with Rangers? It would be the whole of Scottish football that would have a say though, all the way down to Auchinleck Talbot. Would they need buying off? You’d hope not.
Auld Heid
if you get hooked on fishing you are holding the wrong end of the tackle – wink wink say no more
FIFA has warned the Scottish Football Association it must take action after Rangers’ use of the law courts to challenge a registration embargo.
The Scottish Premier League side won a case at the Court of Session on Tuesday, with a judge ruling the Scottish FA had no power to impose a signing ban on the club for bringing the game into disrepute.
A statement from FIFA read: “At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.
“In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.
“As a general rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, as mentioned above the Member Association shall take direct action in order to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes.
“FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible.”
Rangers’ case will now be referred back to the original appeal tribunal, which has been ordered to operate within the framework which exists.
Rule 66 allows for a maximum fine of £100,000 to be imposed, as well as ejection from the Scottish Cup, a suspension, expulsion from participation in the game and/or termination of SFA membership.
bsr,
I’d be more suspicious that the sfa did not make their QC aware of the rule.
Could be the plan was always to get fifa\uefa to pull the trigger, then again
Just back in from garden…grass was that high it was like being back in the Papua New Guinea rainforest with the good doctor…I’m sure there was a number of new species evolving out there…was expecting to be confronted by a tribe of pygmies with rings in their snouts & poison darts in their flutes…no wait that was the OO rehearsing for marching season.
What does “suspension” mean in terms of SFA punishment- does that include an indefinite expulsion, for say, a year or longer- rather than a permanent expulsion?
“FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible.”
Don’t FIFA know that the SFA don’t do “fast”?
Kojo……..
“As Ollie said to Stan?”
“Another fine mess”
Sounds about right to me.
Still laughin’ ? Hope it does’nt hurt too much.
HH
archdeaconsbench on 29 May, 2012 at 17:20 said:
Forgive me if I’m missing something, but what legal recourse (if any) do the huns have if the SFA ignore todays ruling and keep the ban in place??
Weren’t the Swiss courts fining UEFA £600 a day every day Sion weren’t re-instated into the Europa League? I’m wouldn’t be surprised if executives could even be detained indefinitely under contempt of court charges until the embargo was lifted.
Can you hear it …………………..surely you can hear it
The silence from the SFA is deafening
When the court decision was announced on The BBC News Channel as breaking news,even the Anglo newsreaders seemed nonplussed/gobsmacked. Well,who isn’t. I do hope the maladministrators have made the big faux pas that everyone on here seems to believe and that it is,in effect,assisted suicide.
ScatchItAndIt’llBleed CSC.
HH!
: )
wonkyradar on 29 May, 2012 at 17:35 said:
A workmate once turned down the offer of a pint saying he had to go home to cut the grass “before Sting finds out about it”
Sick of all this they aren’t going to get punished. Kev in the jungle has been on the money from day 1. New club sanction free will be tomorrow’s story.
parkheadcumsal…,
if the sfa get expelled from fifa\uefa and we move to another country, we could then sue the sfa for loss of earnings for the years of cheating, I’d like that :o)
Sorry to be pedantic, but why is it FIFA that have intervened and not UEFA?
Not that I’m unhappy with that, just interested in the reason.
Embdy?
Do we really think Uefa will act on this, what would they posssibly have to gain to pick a fight that means nothing to them as far as the game is concerned, if you want to see procrastination look and learn SFA, UEFA will show you how.
The only fear Rangers have (and the SFA / SPL) is that the dual contracts issue is proved before liquidation, if its before then all punishments stand, if its after then sorry but we cant punish the new club
Wonky Radar 17.35
Watch out for the ‘wee arrow peepil’.
Just heard the news about rfcia winning their case, well either this spells the death of the rankers or the death of Scottish football.
Message to CFC move on to the appropriate strategy, get Celtic the hell out of it!
Hx2
canamalar
Paul McBride (God rest his soul) slaughtered their grasp of rules for Neil Lennon’s ban, not surprised a Judge did the same for Ragers.
It’s all irrelevant in the big picture of having no money anyway, and side splittingly funny that they will come out worse if FIFA step in.
This is a black day for Scottish football and for Celtic.
What happens now:
SFA accept Court of Session decision.
FIFA sit on their hands.
Rangers emerge as new company, debt free, no sanctions, playing in SPL, with a bigger transfer budget than anyone else in Scotland.
Celtic have no where to go, EPL, Championship doors are firmly closed. The notion of buying a club in England is a non starter, the FA would not allow a current club to be relocated to Glasgow.
We are stuck, treated as a second class club in a country which has treated a large section of our support as second class for generations.
Much as I’m reluctant to enter into the hyperbole – a possible consequence of today’s judgement would see Celtic banned from European competition, now there’s something to get paranoid about.
First up – congratulations Huns. FIFA must become active now. They will care not a jot about the identity of the team that ignores their rules. The problem is that we are all about to suffer because of this course of action.
On a separate note, Lord G is a good guy but viewed by many as a bit of a loose cannon . His grounding is primarily English law. However, what about the senselessness of this – he has just overturned a decision upheld by an appeal panel chaired by Lord Carloway, an Inner House judge and tipped by some to be either the foremost or 2nd top judge in the country. Who says the law is an ass?!!
Vmhan
Well said – let’s leave!