Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[Claymores]

But CoS didn't say the punishment was too harsh, just that it wasn't available. They obviously thought being kicked out of the cup wasn't harsh enough or they would have done it first time round. So you can equally say they can't choose that as they previously deemed it too lenient.

But Co said the Transfer ban was not an punishment available to the Tribunal and referred it back for punishment within the options specified in the SFA rules. The onlly options specified are: fine, exclusion from Scottish Cup, suspension and termination. The last two were specifically acknowleged as too harsh for the crime, the fine levied is already at the maximum. Surely you can spot where this leads.

[WeeHectorPar]

He's the only one on this site making any kind of defence for his club. I don't know whether that's because he's just got more gall or if he's the only one not resigned to their fate, but fair play.

I don't think there's any reason for thinking they will result in extra punishment, know. Of course, there's no way of telling - this is a completely unique case and as such all punishment is concocted to suit the crime, but I think most neutrals are inferring everything will be done to keep RFC in the SPL, however poor a team they have to field.

That would be a legitimate solution, were it to be true that any form of age-discrimination whatsoever is illegal. It quite clearly isn't. Rangers don't have a leg to stand on if they seriously think this is their case.

If that's the best defence anyone can make then they really are phucked.

[54_and_counting]

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

yes rangers signed up to the SFA rules and respective punishments that follow if the rules are broken, and nowhere in the rules does it say a transfer embargo can be imposed on a club

the problem the SFA now have is that they have been told by a higher power that their punishment was illegal by their rules and they have to review the punishment

But when the panel, and then the appeal panel both looked at the case they made up that punishment because they felt no other punishment suited the crime, so now the SFA are stuck because if they choose a different punishment (within their rules) then FIFA (and everyone else) will likely say "why didnt you choose that before instead of being dragged into court, also why did your appeal panel not spot this complete f**k up"

By making up their punishment for Rangers the SFA have effectively made a complete c**t of it

[djchapsticks]

Am I missing something here? How will they be able to sign players? Aren't they still in administration? Isn't a CVA still extremely unlikely and a NewCo/Liquidation the only viable alternative? Don't they still have the BTC? Isn't the issue of EBT and Double contracts still on the table? Aren't the wages going back up to 100% on Friday? Isn't Charles Green still regarded as an asset stripper? Don't their best players still have minimum release fees on their contracts which will see then go on the cheap, regardless of CVA outcome? Even if they do exit admin via a CVA, how do they expect to get additional funding to replenish what will probably be a decimated squad?

Rangers have won a tiny, relatively insignificant battle today, which may drag out yet (if they were allowed to appeal not once, but twice, then surely the SFA have the right of appeal as well). They still have a multitude more to face and against much higher powers than the SFA and with far greater consequences.

[Paquis]

Done it, and can i just say. You made such a heartfelt plea there, that i did a cut & paste job

Hope you fixed the typo

[kiddy]

The rest of you get off your arses and start doing the same.

http://www.fifa.com/contact/form.html

Done.

As a result of todays Scottish Court of Session ruling in Edinburgh. I feel compelled to contact yourselves with regards it's outcome in the case of Glasgow Rangers FC versus the Scottish Football Association (SFA).

I find it extremely concerning that a member club, of the association, should take it's National Governing body to the Civil Courts. In response to it's punishment for breaches of the rules of association.

The initial judgement, having already been upheld at an independent appelant committee & having been seen as lenient in the official report. Has today been referred back to the SFA, by the civil court, for reconsideration.

In doing so, this member club not only chose to ignore Articles 62-64 of FIFA's statutes, in treating the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), as being the final arbiter in cases of dispute. But also attempts to ride roughshod over the articles, & rules of association, adopted by the SFA & it's membership. Most recently voted on, UNANIMOUSLY, at its Annual General Meeting in 2011.

It is therefore my opinion, that neither the SFA, or its other member clubs, should be held accountable for the actions of one member in bringing the game into disrepute & as such, FIFA should bring to bear it's full weight behind it's member association.

[GunnerBairn]

Sion was punished by the Swiss FA for fielding ineligible players (not for going to the courts) and only after they had actually lost in court (Tribunal Cantonal de Valais) and lost at the CAS.

Technically, the players on EBTs were all 'ineligible' and the investigation(s) are still ongoing for them. Needless to say, more punishments are en route for these double contracts. Very serious breaches with perhaps only match fixing more serious (a la SFA recent statement). I can't see a way out for Rangers, but the more they dig the more muck is thrown out.

Edited May 29, 2012 by GunnerBairn

[ribzanelli]

But Co said the Transfer ban was not an punishment available to the Tribunal and referred it back for punishment within the options specified in the SFA rules. The onlly options specified are: fine, exclusion from Scottish Cup, suspension and termination. The last two were specifically acknowleged as too harsh for the crime, the fine levied is already at the maximum. Surely you can spot where this leads.

I get what you say - but by not choosing exclusion from the cup when it was available, the SFA have demostrated that they consider that too lenient. As you say the others were considered too harsh. So when they are stuck between a punishment which is too lenient and one which is too harsh, they don't have to go for the lenient one

[Claymores]

Am I missing something here? How will they be able to sign players? Aren't they still in administration? Isn't a CVA still extremely unlikely and a NewCo/Liquidation the only viable alternative? Don't they still have the BTC? Isn't the issue of EBT and Double contracts still on the table? Aren't the wages going back up to 100% on Friday? Isn't Charles Green still regarded as an asset stripper? Don't their best players still have minimum release fees on their contracts which will see then go on the cheap, regardless of CVA outcome? Even if they do exit admin via a CVA, how do they expect to get additional funding to replenish what will probably be a decimated squad?

Rangers have won a tiny, relatively insignificant battle today, which may drag out yet (if they were allowed to appeal not once, but twice, then surely the SFA have the right of appeal as well). They still have a multitude more to face and against much higher powers than the SFA and with far greater consequences.

Green could Newco tomorrow - that ends Administration and Gattuso could be parading a Rangers top to the press on friday morning. It's that bad.

[kiddy]

yes rangers signed up to the SFA rules and respective punishments that follow if the rules are broken, and nowhere in the rules does it say a transfer embargo can be imposed on a club

the problem the SFA now have is that they have been told by a higher power that their punishment was illegal by their rules and they have to review the punishment

But when the panel, and then the appeal panel both looked at the case they made up that punishment because they felt no other punishment suited the crime, so now the SFA are stuck because if they choose a different punishment (within their rules) then FIFA (and everyone else) will likely say "why didnt you choose that before instead of being dragged into court, also why did your appeal panel not spot this complete f**k up"

By making up their punishment for Rangers the SFA have effectively made a complete c**t of it

When are Dundee due their day in court?

Anyway, you wanted expulsion? Looks like you got it.

Edited May 29, 2012 by kiddy

[Caff]

Sion was punished by the Swiss FA for fielding ineligible players (not for going to the courts) and only after they had actually lost in court (Tribunal Cantonal de Valais) and lost at the CAS.

I thought it was FIFA (not the Swiss FA) who imposed the transfer ban for for fielding El Hadary.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ica/8079834.stm

Fifa's Dispute Resolution Chamber has sanctioned both Sion and El Hadary over the controversial move from Egyptian club Al Ahly in February 2008.

Edited to add.Ignore me, I am talking p1sh!

Edited May 29, 2012 by Caff

[Cobardon]

As it seems to have been missed...they can also give a suspended sentence, say, until further transgressions take place or other previous bad behaviour comes to light. This means they can threaten them with expulsion and hope they die in the meantime...and then when the dual contract investigation finds against them legitimately expel them then.

And if for some reason they win that, the SFA will be able to claim they acted tougher than mere cup exclusion while not having to do anything else (unless there are more revelations to come of course...but that will be hanging over Rangers until all investigations are complete. Seems to be the best solution for the SFA to me.

[craigkillie]

I thought it was FIFA (not the Swiss FA) who imposed the transfer ban for for fielding El Hadary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/africa/8079834.stm

FIFA imposed the ban, but the Swiss FA essentially ignored it and allowed Sion to register players.

After Celtic's appeal about Sion was upheld by UEFA the club took it to the Swiss courts. At that point, UEFA demanded that the Swiss FA punish Sion, which they did with a massive points deduction.

[THE KING]

yes rangers signed up to the SFA rules and respective punishments that follow if the rules are broken, and nowhere in the rules does it say a transfer embargo can be imposed on a club

the problem the SFA now have is that they have been told by a higher power that their punishment was illegal by their rules and they have to review the punishment

But when the panel, and then the appeal panel both looked at the case they made up that punishment because they felt no other punishment suited the crime, so now the SFA are stuck because if they choose a different punishment (within their rules) then FIFA (and everyone else) will likely say "why didnt you choose that before instead of being dragged into court, also why did your appeal panel not spot this complete f**k up"

By making up their punishment for Rangers the SFA have effectively made a complete c**t of it

Can you us the part where it says a transfer embargo cannot be imposed. Thanks

[djchapsticks]

Green could Newco tomorrow - that ends Administration and Gattuso could be parading a Rangers top to the press on friday morning. It's that bad.

Why though? The remit he gave himself when agreeing to buy Rangers was to bring in players which would make a return on his investment. Is a 34 year old, half blind attack dog who is at a halfway house between retirement and one last glory run at a shambling wreck of what used to be a big club, going to be the way ahead for a guy, who by all accounts, is a fucking ruthless businessman?

[Paquis]

Technically, the players on EBTs were all 'ineligible' and the investigation(s) are still ongoing for them. Needless to say, more punishments are en route for these double contracts. Very serious breaches with perhaps only match fixing more serious (a la SFA recent statement). I can't see a way out for Rangers, but the more they dig the more muck is thrown out.

That has not been proven as yet.

[chrismcarab]

A ban from the Scottish Cup for Rangers effectively amounts to a minimum one game ban if they go out in round 3 or a maximum 6 - 10 games (depending on replays, etc). In that respect its a floating punishment that can't really be an effective deterrent in anyway whatsoever as it doesn't offer a quantifiable outcome. It's akin to totting up enough bookable offences along the way and then having them miss the final. There are individual players from plenty of clubs who have suffered just as much in that respect for poorly timed tackles than the effect of banning Rangers as a club for their misdemeanours would have over one season.

There are teams from the lower leagues who will actually be further away from winning the cup when they get put out in round 2 than Rangers would be by not participating at all - based on the fact they normally enter in round 3. It's a quite ludicrous situation to think that banning them from the cup for a year is any kind of punishment for the breaches committed.

Anyone else up for a collective email effort to the SFA on this point?

[CambieBud]

Technically, the players on EBTs were all 'ineligible' and the investigation(s) are still ongoing for them. Needless to say, more punishments are en route for these double contracts. Very serious breaches with perhaps only match fixing more serious (a la SFA recent statement). I can't see a way out for Rangers, but the more they dig the more muck is thrown out.

This may be technically correct, but remember Rangers were ordered by The SFA/SPL to produce all documents relating to EBTs by early April. The dynamic duo ignored them. Only after the BBC documentary did The authorities then put a deadline on receipt of these. NOTHING will happen as there will be no inciminating evidence left to see.

[craigkillie]

Been out all day, so this may have been discussed, but my reading of today was that the Court of Session considered the "any other punishment can be levied" rule to be unlawful.

Under normal law, it probably is, but I think CAS would have accepted this as an acceptable law for a sporting association. Obviously these rules wouldn't normally be challenged through the civil courts, so it wouldn't be a problem to have such a clause.

[Collins Out!]

As a Govan man born and bred i say we MUST take this chance to rid ourselves of this SCUM once and for all. If by some heinous collusion these beasts are allowed to participate in the SPL next season there has to be a total boycott of all games at Ibrox.

It's time to bring down this Old Firm pox that is afflicting Scotland.

Edited May 29, 2012 by Collins Out!