Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[HibeeJibee]

These are the sort of things that piss me off. Rangers signed up to those rules so should have had no leave to appeal.

There's a grey area in this, it's not black-n-white. It shouldn't be acceptable for any governing body to have a rulebook which offers clubs no right-of-appeal against a decision of the body itself. Should - as an example - an SFL dispute come to SFA, we might say "fair enough" if they're final arbiter... they're a 3rd party. They're neither the appellant nor the applicator. (Even then I'd still advocate CAS tbf).

But in this scenario Rangers, seemingly, were debarred from both CAS and the courts by SFA and/or FIFA rules... meaning no external appeals at all. That cannot be right.

[Baxter Parp]

Neither are the SFA rules.

So he wasn't interpreting a point of law then, was he?

[Paquis]

Pedant. But Carloway and Glennie were interpreting the exact same SFA rules. If a transfer embargo were explicitly stated as an available punishment for the tribunal then Rangers would not have won the court case.

Correct .... but it wasn't.

[Hey! Ho! Jambo!]

Sorry, haven't read through everything...cant be arsed. Can someone summarise what state the cheats are in now? My understanding is that they foolishly challenged the lenient punishment, which will now be discarded, leaving a heaftier punishment like expulsion to be imposed instead? What is the likelihood of expulsion?

Nah, can't be arsed.

[Milo]

Unlike a lot of people who have joined this thread today, I can't foresee the future. No psychic powers, I'm afraid.

But this afternoon's ruling has made one thing one blindingly obvious. After weeks/months of procrastination and passing the buck all the doubts and posturing have been cast away and we are left with the simple, bare facts; plain for all to see.

Forget administrations, CVAs, Big and wee tax cases - these are now side issues. As from this afternoon this has become a simple power struggle between Rangers and the SFA. It's a bare-knuckle fight and, from this afternoon, only one of them can survive in its present form. There is even a possibility that both Rangers AND the SFA will disintegrate in the coming months as they battle each other.

It is now public knowledge that both organisations are at best incompetent if not corrupt. Will the timeservers at the SFA lose their priviliged positions or will Rangers have to come clean over the way business was done during the Murray years?

Only one can live: both may die as they fight bitterly to the end. Neither of them has the wit to realise that they have already lost whatever little credibility they once held.

(edited for typos)

Edited May 29, 2012 by Milo

[WeeHectorPar]

Injuries and suspensions are the least of your worries. There are a hundred other reasons why they will not be fulfilling any fixtures next season.

Don't you mean a hundred MILLION?

[jwmski]

That is correct. They act against the associatiion thus ensuring the association has to hammer RFC !

Aye surely they either expel Rangers or it's an admission that Rangers are more powerful than the governing body of the national game. I think the SFA's hand will be forced.

[HibeeJibee]

Why don't the SFA say 'fair do's', have your fine and thats it on that charge.

But.............................since then you have bbrought the game into far greater disrepute with EBT's and this nuclear thang , new charge, new meeting, new result, new within rules judgement, tattie

Clearly the SFA has the whole remit of punishments available if EBTs are proved to have been 2nd contracts and worthy of punishment.

However I don't really see how they could justify hitting them for going to court, when the court has said that the transfer embargo wasn't an allowable punishment and when it appears Rangers were allowed no 3rd party appeal whatsoever.

It would surely open up even more potential for appeals to CAS or the courts, hence even more mess than currently?

[TheBeither]

However, the problems are... [1] it was actually outwith the powers of the SFA panel to impose a transfer embargo; [2] the original panel and the appeal panel, in deciding a transfer embargo was what they wanted to apply, also said an expulsion was too harsh; [3] it appears the SFA rules didn't allow Rangers to appeal to CAS which meant they'd no right of appeal at all - as they weren't supposed to go to court either.

It'd be surprising if - against that background - FIFA would demand Rangers hammerred, IMO.

I do not believe that FIFA have any authority to act against Rangers. They can only act against the Association.

It's one confusing mess. Point 3 is interesting. If correct, that is a major f**k up from the SFA.

Although, the added weight on the SFA from FIFA should at least ensure that they abide by the rules (this time) and provide a suitable punishment for Rangers. A 1 year ban from the Scottish cup would be a laughable outcome.

[Doink]

I see on RM they are off to sign Jordan Rhodes

[TheBeither]

I see on RM they are off to sign Jordan Rhodes

Heard they are also in talks with Messi and Didier Drogba

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

I agree with most of your post.

But given that the CoS has sent back the sanction, it is highly unlikely that the SFA will reimpose it. That is just asking for Rangers and the SFA to be back in front of the CoS pronto.

I don't disagree with that assessment. If Carloway is reviewing his decision he may be swayed by the court but he might not. Judges are stubborn. If the review panel come back with the same decision what do the SFA do. The panel is independent and they are bound by the decision, they are also bound by the court decision. The simplest and fairest answer would be for all parties to agree to bring the case in front of CAS and let them figure it out.

[ShedruleFTD83]

Whatever happens with rangers every single team and fan should boycott anything to do with them as they have now jeopardised the very future of the Scottish game.

That goes without saying, empty stadiums at every ground they visit, it must be something that we all do and stick to it, every other club and attend in bigger numbers for other games instead, its a small sacrifice to miss 3/4 games a season.

We must Unite against them and very much make them outcasts of the SPL (more so than they already are), word must be spread to fans who aren't familiar with these boards to boycott everything Rangers, ignore them, they will get fed up bigtime going to games all the time with no opposing fans and find when they do travel they haven't any opposing fans to sing their shyte to as we'll not be there (sounds unrealistic but the feeling is strong surely word could get round?)

I wont even be watching any goals/highlights or anything of games involving them, including against Utd, they will basically be invisible to me and would urge everyone to follow suit, keep our own league table on here without them included.

[Forest_Fifer]

But the SFA would be on very sticky legal grounds if they tried to 'hammer' RFC for exercising its right to seek redress from the CoS.

Even when that is explicitly forbidden by FIFA regulations? Basically Rangers had two options, CAS or the law courts. Both apparently not allowed by the SFA but one definitely allowed by UEFA and FIFA. So why did they pick the law courts?

[Paquis]

I don't disagree with that assessment. If Carloway is reviewing his decision he may be swayed by the court but he might not. Judges are stubborn. If the review panel come back with the same decision what do the SFA do. The panel is independent and they are bound by the decision, they are also bound by the court decision. The simplest and fairest answer would be for all parties to agree to bring the case in front of CAS and let them figure it out.

Is the panel independent? Who actually appointed them? Why would Rangers agree to go to the CAS when they have a CoS decision in their favour?

I have been involved in mediation before a very senior judge (not football related). My side already had a court judgement in our favour which made our mediating position pretty strong. As a result, while we did give some ground, we still got a result that was substantially in our favour and, importantly, we put an end to future, costly, legal action.

[THE KING]

bbc reporting as if the SFA only have 3 optionns

• termination of registration
• ban from cup
• suspension

but they have 5

they forgot about

• a 100k fine
• & ignoring the COS judge (which is what they may be seeking legal advice about)

And 6..

Go to the Winchester.

[HibeeJibee]

a) If CAS had denied them leave to appeal then they could have gone to the CoS. (bleating about the timescale is irrelevant, like a crook asking to speed up his trial because he is on remand).

b) They could also have simply asked the SFA will you make an exception to allow us to go to CAS rather than force us to to go via CoS - YES or NO then proceeded on the basis of the answer.

It really matters not a jot as there is way too mileage and further charges to be brought should Rangers remain as RFC.

I see where you are coming from with this... however... I'm sure that Rangers reply to [a] would be that they thought it was "as much an offence" as going to the Court of Session - hence not their fault to pick an apple over an orange; while their reply to would be that they felt SFA rules already answered it in black-n-white.

[Paquis]

Even when that is explicitly forbidden by FIFA regulations? Basically Rangers had two options, CAS or the law courts. Both apparently not allowed by the SFA but one definitely allowed by UEFA and FIFA. So why did they pick the law courts?

One .... it could be done quickly. The CAS is not a fast option.

Two .... there remains questions over the impartiality and independence of the CAS.

[Owsley]

But the SFA would be on very sticky legal grounds if they tried to 'hammer' RFC for exercising its right to seek redress from the CoS.

No, they'd be hammering Rangers for the non payment of PAYE and NI - the original offence. That still has to be adequately punished.

[Florentine_Pogen]

It certainly makes the whole timing of things very interesting. CVA delayed from yesterday for 'administrative adjustments' then CVA out today at 1.30pm detailing conditions of acceptance include participation in ALL competitions at the level they currently hold. Perhaps knowing all the while if they won they appeal at the CoS today, they would in effect put the SFA in a position of being unable to impose further sanctions.

If they expel them or kick them out the cup, the CVA goes dead and the blame for stewing creditors is placed at the SFA door by Green. Potentially a masterstroke of the highest slimiest unpalatable order and puts incredible pressure on the SFA in light of this. Using the court case as a deflection from the CVA but making the conditions known at 1.30pm in advance of the hearing announcement today really does smack of careful planning. Thoughts?

Very interesting point Chris. Makes you wonder about Hughie Green and his pal MacDonald. Green has previous at Sheffield for this kind of strategy though. Asset strippers are repugnant by their very definition but they are certainly no mugs.

Presumably whyte / Green / D+p / Ticketus will be having yet another celebratory dinner as we post in order to high five each other in their succesful overturning of the transfer embargo. Of courseDavid Grier will be in attendance but shall be kept in the dark as to the nature of events.