Jump to content

 

 

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'punishment'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Main Forums
    • Rangers Chat
    • General Football Chat
    • Bluenose Lounge
    • Forum Support and Feedback

Calendars

  • Community Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location


Interests


Occupation


Favourite Rangers Player


Twitter


Facebook


Skype

  1. The Scottish Football Association could face punishment from FIFA for the behaviour of Croatian fans during a World Cup qualifier earlier this month. The world football governing body have opened disciplinary proceedings against both associations for their failure to prevent travelling supporters from letting off flares and smoke bombs during the 1-0 win for Gordon Strachan's side. Although Scotland fans were not involved in the incidents, FIFA rules stipulate that the home association hosting a fixture is responsible for any instances of "improper conduct" within its stadium. The Scottish FA could be hit with a fine for the incident, with the Croatian federation also under investigation. A spokesman for the governing body told STV: "We can confirm that disciplinary proceedings have been opened against the Scottish Football Association and the Croatian Football Federation for incidents that were reported during the preliminary competition match of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil between Scotland and Croatia on 15 October 2013. "As the proceedings are on-going, please understand that we cannot comment further." FIFA's disciplinary code states that "the home association or home club is liable for improper conduct among spectators, regardless of the question of culpable conduct or culpable oversight, and, depending on the situation, may be fined. Further sanctions may be imposed in the case of serious disturbances. "Improper conduct includes violence towards persons or objects, letting off incendiary devices, throwing missiles, displaying insulting or political slogans in any form, uttering insulting words or sounds, or invading the pitch." The English FA are similarly subject to investigation by FIFA after Polish fans let off flares at Wembley earlier this month. http://sport.stv.tv/football/international/245873-scottish-fa-face-fifa-sanctions-for-croatia-fans-setting-off-flares/
  2. Did I hear this correctly today? If so, could Rhegan tell us what the SFA did to prevent Craig Whyte getting ownership of Rangers two and a half years ago? Despite warnings about Whyte's background from the likes of AJ and Jeff Randall the SFA sat back and allowed Whyte to get his hands on Rangers and we all know how that ended up. Did Whyte make any such prior application to the SFA ? If so can we see it? Or did Liewell & his PGB call the shots & allow Whyte ownership knowing what was likely to happen as that would benefit Liewell's club ? So what's changed regards Dave King ? is it because his arrival at Rangers & subsequent investment might be of considerable benefit to Rangers that an 'application' now has to be made ? Do some people at the SFA not like the thought of Rangers returning to the top of Scottish football? Also has the fat,sweaty, bespectacled lawyer been working behind the scenes to change the rules? King's arrival yesterday certainly seemed to concern the usual suspects in the mhedia. English for one.
  3. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/barry-ferguson-saw-scottish-fans-2528944 YOU need a thick skin to be a professional football player. If you’re going to fall to pieces when fans scream abuse at you then you’re in the wrong game. But there are occasions when lines are crossed and when behaviour becomes so disgusting it’s unacceptable. That line was crossed in Moscow the other night. It wasn’t the thickness of Yaya Toure’s skin that made him a target for the bampots in the CSKA support. It was the colour. And this is exactly the kind of incident that should get football stopped. I’m deadly serious, if UEFA have any intention of stamping racism out of the game they should hit the Russians hard and fast. Kick them out of the Champions League right now and show the world football takes a zero tolerance approach to morons who think making monkey noises at black players is just a harmless bit of fun. I take my hat off to Toure for being able to handle what was going on around him and to concentrate on playing football. If it was me I might have walked off the pitch, as Kevin Prince Boateng did last season during a friendly for AC Milan. Maybe if Toure and his Man City team-mates had done the same thing – bringing a Champions League game to a standstill – it would have forced the powers that be to hand out proper punishments. But I can’t blame the guy for dealing with it in his own way. He stayed out there, took everything they could throw at him and did not quit until the game was won and his team was heading home with three points. He left them with nothing and I have to say I really admire Toure for being so strong. The question now though is what exactly are UEFA going to do about it? They talk a lot about “fair play” and “respect” but it’s time for them to put up or shut up and to show Toure they’ve got his back. They have a chance to make a real difference. Handing out two bob fines or closing stadiums for a one-off game won’t wash. It is time for a clear message to be sent around the world there is no place in football for behaviour such as this – and I’m speaking as a guy who is not easily offended. In fact, I’m all for rival fans giving the other team pelters. I used to love walking off the Rangers bus outside Parkhead on Old Firm day. As soon as you popped your head out of the door you’d hear the Celtic fans screaming and booing. It was brilliant. I’d go so far as to say I thrived on it. The moment you walked off that bus the game head was on. There was something special about walking out into a stadium knowing 55,000 people hated your guts – but the other 5000 were standing shoulder to shoulder with you and your team-mates. It created a feeling we were all in it together and that brought the best out of me. If you’re going to s*** yourself at the thought of getting abused you’d be as well walking back to the bus. It’s a man’s game and I don’t recall any team-mate of mine quaking in his boots because they felt intimidated by any set of supporters. Yes, a few of the foreign lads might have had that “what’s going on here” look about them when they first played in an Old Firm game but for me this was just the way it was meant to be. But I remember one game when I felt a line was crossed. It happened at Ibrox shortly after the 9/11 atrocity when Claudio Reyna was at the club. Some halfwit at the front of the Celtic end made an aeroplane gesture when Claudio was over there taking a corner. That one was hard for us all to take. I had sat in the dressing room with Claudio on the day the World Trade Centre came down so I knew how devastated he was. He had friends who were in one of the towers so it hit him on a really personal level. So for some idiot to stand there, arms outstretched, trying to goad and mock him at a football game? No, that was completely unacceptable. But what was done to Toure was even more appalling. I remember 1988 when I was just nine years old and Mark Walters had signed for Rangers. I used to go and watch a lot of games back then because my brother was in the team. To this day I can still see those images in my head of bananas being thrown on to the pitch. I was a kid, I didn’t really understand what was going on. But looking back, it turns my stomach to think Scottish fans could have acted like that. Thankfully, we’ve come a long way since then. If such a thing happened in a British stadium today there would be a massive outcry. You just need to see the stick Roy Hodgson has taken for telling a joke about a monkey to see how seriously the subject of race is treated. That ridiculous episode should never have got further than the dressing-room walls. Andros Townsend didn’t take offence because it wasn’t racism. It was just a bad joke. But what went on in Moscow on Wednesday night really does deserve all of our outrage. I just hope UEFA have the courage to do the right thing.
  4. ON the advice of police, Brian Stockbridge, the Rangers finance director, has had to improve the security system at his family home following a photograph of the property being published on the front page of a newspaper on Friday. Police went to his home and installed “what can be legitimately called a panic button” according to a person familiar with the story. Stockbridge has come in for heavy criticism over the way he has managed Rangers’ finances and incurred the wrath of the fans when videoing Malcolm Murray when the former chairman was under the influence of alcohol. Much of the flak has been par for the course for an executive in his position, but lately there has been a number of more objectionable threats made online and the publication of a picture of his distinctive home alerted the police to a possible risk to his safety and the safety of his family. On various supporters’ websites there was anger over Stockbridge purchasing the house with the help of a £200,000 bonus awarded to him when Rangers won the Third Division title. The house was purchased a year before, however. Stockbridge has resisted calls to resign, but protests are ongoing. Stockbridge and James Easdale are the only remaining directors on the plc board following the recent departures of Ian Hart, Bryan Smart and Craig Mather. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-brian-stockbridge-improves-home-security-1-3148990
  5. An magnificent example of how the sport should be played......if that sport is running around, chasing after where the football used to be 5 seconds before you got there for 90 minutes and then kicking people when they're lying on the ground. Even more magnificently, they managed to restrict Barcelona to a mere 82% of the possession - a huge improvement on the 88% Barcelona had last year. I'm looking forward to wee neil explaining how, despite being made to look like a shower of talentless tits for an hour and a half, Celtic were actually the better side, how Brown didn't deserve to be sent off for kicking Neymar in the back and how they can still qualify for the knockout stages.
  6. CELTIC shareholders are demanding the club’s board lodge a formal complaint with UEFA over Rangers’ readmittance to the Scottish Football League following its financial collapse. A resolution set to be tabled at the club’s AGM on November 15 calls upon the board to demand a probe into how “an unqualified new club” formed after the Ibrox side’s liquidation was allowed entry into the league by the SFA. They claim Scotland’s footballing bosses contravened the UEFA code of conduct by granting a licence and put other clubs vying to enter the league at a disadvantage. The Celtic board has urged that the motion is rejected, saying that requesting a UEFA investigation would be “unnecessary”. But shareholders have promised a “fiery debate” over the resolution, which states sections of the Hoops’ shareholders have “no confidence in the SFA’s governance”. Rangers entered administration in February last year. Charles Green’s Sevco bought the club’s assets last June as it faced liquidation and later changed the name to The Rangers Football Club Plc. The Ibrox club was removed from the SPL but its membership of the SFA was transferred to the new owners, allowing it to start last season in Division Three. Celtic shareholders have raised questions about the SFA’s decision, claiming it displayed “a disregard for the rules and spirit of fair play” and “contradicted FIFA, UEFA and SFA mission statements”. The resolution also claims the SFA was involved in “secret cross governance agreements” to get Rangers back in the league, allowed the club to compete “without proper registration compliance” and that the SFA failed to initiate an “inquiry on improper player registration”. It is also stated “our concern is directed at the governance of the game in Scotland, the SFA, and its apparent disregard for the licensing designed to protect against such commercial impropriety and ensure sporting integrity”. http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/436527/Celtic-shareholders-want-UEFA-to-probe-SFA-over-Rangers-punishment?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-scotland+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+Scotland+Feed%29
  7. Despite the madness and chaos it inevitably brings in its wake, writers down the years have tried to theorise War. Perhaps this is a natural human response, when one bears witness to destruction and carnage, to try to find some logic behind it. Since the days of Herodotus, the 'father of history', literary types have wrestled with the concept and after effects of this organised insanity, refusing to believe in the oldest explanation of all: we are just like that. No-one ever claimed there was much logic in sport, either, and few writers have tried to unearth a theoretical concept behind it. We still wait for the equivalent of Sun Tsu's Art of War; there are no indispensable coaching texts to rank alongside Guderian's Achtung, Panzer! or Liddle Hart's Strategy. These weird thoughts have arisen because war and sport have clashed in the rumblings over the supposed offensive behaviour by some soldiers at Ibrox last weekend. Although the language used by the people who claim to be offended reveal the nature of the game - standard issue complaint kits have plainly been rushed to the front, replete with 'vile', 'disgusting', and 'offensive' cluster phrases - let's treat it with a seriousness it does not deserve and examine whether or not these soldiers merit chastisisment for their actions. The charges against them? Singing, your honour. Even by the standards of two things which lack logic - war and sport - this is a belter. You decide - what's worse, killing or singing? When Lt. Wm. Calley was hauled over the coals for the massacre at My Lai during the Vietnam War, it's just possible that his punishment - a couple of years house arrest, according to Wiki - may have been harsher had it been known that he and his men were giving it side A of 'Are You Experienced' as they fired the village. Elderly Nazis, hauled from their dotage and made to answer for their appalling crimes in eastern Europe and elsewhere, tend to be treated leniently on grounds of age. Personally I would have them shot regardless, the swine, but I doubt if I could convince many to join me in that stance with the evidence that many an einsatz gruppen went into action merrily belting out the Horst Wessel. I should probably point out here that no, I am not comparing the soldiers at Ibrox last Saturday with these historical debris of humanity. But in war, things like My Lai or the Katyn Forest massacre happen. Societies tend to accept that and, with a few exceptional ocassions, tolerate it as a necessary price. Some commentators have pointed out how much more difficult some of the images would make it for the army to return to Ulster. Unlike many Rangers supporters I'm not greatly interested in Northern Ireland and make no pretence at being an expert, but I've no doubt that, during the conflicts there, many unpleasant things happened too. I understand the point and I probably agree that ideally, soldiers wouldn't present such an image, but really...after suffering for decades from your actual violence, are we to believe that songs are the new bombs? The Army protects its soldiers. All armies do. They ask their staff to do a job most people would baulk at (killing fellow humans) and must create a sense of loyalty and camaraderie the better to do so. So, how insane would it be to train your staff to kill terrorists, then discipline them for singing about it after the fact? Outside of the upside down worlds of Gulliver's Travels (or the even more appropriate but lesser known Erewhon by Samuel Butler) anyone considering such a policy must be required to suspend their logical faculties completely. Shoot to Kill! Sing for Peace! Utter fantasy, a grimy attempt to smear Rangers and the army with the feeblest (and, in my book, the maddest) of complaints. In the present days of madness which have engulfed the game in Scotland, this tawdry little episode probably merits only a footnote. But it adds to the hate which the game seemingly runs on nowadays. Dispiriting and unpleasant stuff, but then again...maybe we are just like that.
  8. BARRY FERGUSON vents his anger at the sentence passed down to Gunning for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk, and says it is a common occurrence during matches. 20 Sep 2013 07:22 Vincent Lunny.Vincent Lunny. I DON’T care much for the SFA. I’m unlikely to get a job offer from them any time soon, that’s for sure. And this column won’t help my relationship with them either because I find it impossible to discuss the people in charge of our game without working myself into an angry rant. Here’s the problem. This should be a positive period for the Scottish game. The national team is on the way back under Gordon Strachan and Celtic were a credit to the country in the San Siro. As much as it might stick in my throat as a Rangers man, Neil Lennon and his side were excellent against AC Milan. They were the better team for 75 minutes and didn’t deserve to lose. So that’s all good. We should be feeling better about ourselves again. I should be able to look guys in the eye in the dressing room at Blackpool again and say: “You see, I told you Scottish football isn’t as bad as you lot make out.” But then the SFA go and do something stupid and you’re left to wonder why you bother. The people who run the game in this country seem hellbent on turning us all into a bad joke. And I’m sick of it. For the last week I’ve had guys down here laughing at the Ian Black betting case and asking me: “What the hell is going on up there? Can you guys not get anything right?” And there’s nothing I can say in Scotland’s defence. Down here it’s a different story. The game is run with total transparency, clear rules and disciplinary procedures that are set in stone. Everyone knows where they stand. Cameron Jerome? He broke the rules on betting and got a 50 grand fine. It was all done and dusted in a matter of days. But how long was the Black saga allowed to rumble on for? It dragged from one week to the next, one meeting to another. Even when he was finally hauled to Hampden the SFA kept everyone waiting for the decision. They hummed and hawed but said nothing for hours. And when they did, they refused to give out the details. Would it have been so difficult for chief executive Stewart Regan to come out and explain exactly what had gone on? To give details of the games in which Black had bet against his team and the reasons behind his punishment? Why would he NOT want to get the facts out there? I just don’t get it. I’ve had my say on Black. If he was in my dressing room I wouldn’t be happy with him. But I’ve also been in trouble so many times at Rangers that I know the club’s disciplinary procedures inside out. They get you in, it’s done and dusted within an hour or two then they make a statement. Why do the SFA find it so hard to act as decisively? There’s another thing that annoys me. Can anyone tell me what Vincent Lunny does? Does anyone know his remit or on what basis he decides which player he’s going to ban next? Does he sit in his house with his feet up and glass of red wine on a Sunday night watching the highlights on the BBC? And if he sees some incident replayed in slow motion, is that when he takes it upon himself to act? Because that would be a disgrace. I’ve been playing top-team football for going on 18 years. In that time there must have been about 10 incidents in every game which could have led to a player being slapped on the wrists or fined. It happens all the time. If Vincent wants to apply the rules fairly and across the board he should be watching every minute of every game or, if that’s too much, employ people to watch them for him. There are plenty of ex-pros out there looking for work. But all the games should be reviewed by someone. Anything less is just not right. Look at Gavin Gunning at Dundee United, who was banned for three matches for flicking a boot at Celtic’s Virgil van Dijk. I must flick out a leg three or four times in every game I play. Now Lunny is giving three-game bans for it? Is that what Scottish football has become? On my Rangers debut at Tynecastle, Neil Pointon nearly took my head off 10 minutes in. He smashed me in the face with his shoulder, elbow and fist all in one go. And I thought to myself: “Welcome to first-team football.” I was so dazed I hardly knew where I was. But it was a great lesson for a young player. I knew I was in a man’s game. And that’s the way football should be. Look, if there’s some bampot running around charging into tackles that can break legs or end careers, Lunny should throw the book at him. But three games for flicking out a leg? Come on. I like to see a wee ding-dong out there. Players who are fired up and getting in a few faces. That’s what it’s about in the heat of battle. But I guess Lunny wouldn’t know that. So let me give him some advice, from the front line straight to office desk. The fans love to see these flashpoints too. It’s called passion, Vinny. It’s what this game is built on – and the more you stamp it out the less people will turn up to watch. They don’t want some faceless guy at Hampden making decisions on a random basis that can harm their team. It’s the same for the players. How do you think Gunning would feel if he was sitting suspended and saw a player doing the exact same thing as he did ... and then finds out Lunny hasn’t spotted it on TV? Would that be fair? Look, I get that the whole idea about this compliance officer was to try to modernise the Scottish game. But please, make it fair. It’s the same for Black. He’ll know plenty of players who have been betting on football matches. And yet he’s the only one who gets done for it. I can’t help feel if you’re at Rangers or even Celtic the chances are they will be all over you like a rash. That’s the way I felt when the SFA were dealing with me. And the treatment Black has received shows that, despite their talk of modernising the game, nothing much has changed.
  9. http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5104-ian-black-exclusive Does not wash with me.
  10. STV - 12 September 2013 00:01 BST Rangers midfielder Ian Black will go before a Scottish Football Association committee on Thursday to answer accusations of betting against his own club on three occasions. The former Inverness CT and Hearts player is accused of putting money on his team to not win matches between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013. Black is also accused of betting on a further ten games in which the club he was playing for were involved in, as well as betting on a further 147 games not involving his team. It is not known which specific fixtures he is accused of placing bets on which involved the clubs he was registered with. The Scottish FA have stated that there is no evidence to suggest the player acted in a manner or influenced proceedings during a game which led to him making money. STV understands the most recent match Black bet upon was Rangers' tie with Albion Rovers in the Ramsdens Cup on July 28, 2013. Rangers won the game 4-0. It is also understood that the player's actions came to light through his use of a Ladbrokes phone account. Footballers registered in Scotland are prohibited by the Scottish FA from betting on any football match. If found guilty, players can be fined from £500 to £1,000,000 and can be either suspended or expelled from playing professional football. They are also not allowed to "behave in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting". The Scottish FA however have made clear there is "no evidence" to suggest Black has breached the second rule. When the allegations were first made, a Rangers spokesperson said: "The club is aware of the SFA's notice of complaint and are currently investigating the matter." http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239202-rangers-ian-black-to-go-before-sfa-committee-over-betting-claims/
  11. IT IS unlikely that Ian Black is going to sit down any time soon – if at all – and explain what he was thinking about that day he struck a bet on East Stirlingshire to get a draw against his own team, Rangers, at Ochilview on April 27. That’s the first question you’d like to ask him. Not about the 159 other bets he placed that contravened the SFA’s betting rules, but that one wager, as part of an accumulator, on Scottish football’s most hopeless senior club getting a draw against the newly crowned Third Division champions with Black himself at the heart of their midfield on the day If you leave to one side the fact that any such betting on football was against the SFA rules, how did Black come to the conclusion that that was the wager he wanted to place? What weird rationale made him opt for a draw? East Stirlingshire were not only bottom of the league but they hadn’t had a draw – not to mind a win – in any of their previous eight games. In fact, they ended up losing their last ten games of the season conceding 39 goals in the process. In the games leading up to Black’s bet on a stalemate, East Stirlingshire had lost 5-1 to Queen’s Park (the week before the Rangers match), lost 2-1 to Annan, lost 6-0 to Peterhead, lost 2-0 to Clyde, lost 2-1 to Montrose, lost 2-0 to Berwick and lost 9-1, yes, 9-1 – to Stirling Albion. Where was the form-line that suggested they were capable of holding Rangers? East Stirlingshire had conceded 101 goals in their 41 games leading up to Rangers match. Black had already played against them three times that season. On none of those occasions was there the slightest bit of evidence that the worst team in Scottish senior football was capable of getting a draw against Ally McCoist’s side. In the first match, Rangers beat them 5-1. In the second, Rangers won 6-2. In the third, Black’s team won 3-1. Three games and an aggregate score of 14-4 and then Black goes for a draw? Does that make sense? Black has been found guilty of betting on football, and betting against his own team, but is there no suggestion of anything more sinister, such as deliberately underperforming in that East Stirlingshire game in order to make the draw a little more likely. Black scored the goal that put Rangers 3-2 ahead, thereby helping to sink his own bet. In that regard, he was a bookmakers’ dream. A punter who deliberately stymied his own wager? That’s nirvana for a bookie. All of this is weird and demands explanation but we won’t get it because Black won’t talk (not for a while at any rate, you’d have to imagine) and the judicial panel won’t publish their findings. None of this is helpful. Here is a footballer who has admitted to betting against his own team and yet, effectively, he will serve the same suspension as a player found guilty of a bad challenge. On Friday, Rangers manager Ally McCoist said that he had no issue with Black or his betting and that, too, is unsatisfactory. How could the Rangers manager not have an issue with one of his players taking the field having had a bet on his team not to win the match he was playing in? McCoist’s words are actually a betrayal of sorts. Imagine McCoist trying to explain himself to a Bill Struth or a Scot Symon? Imagine those gentlemen trying to get their head around this business of Black betting on Rangers drawing with East Stirlingshire before going out to play against them? Amid all the hoopla surrounding the Black case, there was one point on which nearly everybody was agreed and that was that a player should never bet against his own team. Black has admitted to doing precisely that at the end of last season. The Rangers man has been fined, in essence, little more than a week’s wages and is banned, in effect, for three games, the same punishment doled out to Dundee United’s Gavin Gunning a few weeks ago for having a sneaky kick at Virgil van Dijk of Celtic. At times like this the easy thing to do is to give the SFA a shoeing for a verdict that makes little sense to most people but what has to be remembered is that it was their judicial panel which handed down this sanction on Black and that that panel is independent. It stands alone but it is the SFA that must deal with the fallout. Three matches, with seven more suspended, does not amount to zero tolerance of players’ gambling on football. Players gambling isn’t really the nub of the Black affair, of course. Players have a punt. Managers have a punt. Many people in the game have a punt on football even though they are not supposed to. But they don’t bet on their own team not winning. That’s crossing the line. Quite frankly, you won’t stop players betting. It’s instructive to note that Black’s punishment only relates to betting on games involving the club he was registered with at the time. For more than a hundred other breaches, all admitted by the player, he received nothing more than a slap on the wrist. What is the point of a rule if there is no sanction when it is broken multiple times? From the outset of this case, the major question was whether Black had bet against his own team in a match in which he was playing. He did and he deserved a bigger sanction than the one he got. He certainly deserved harsher words than his manager was prepared to offer in public. McCoist didn’t have to sack Black, although Rangers fired Fran Sandaza for a lot less under the pretence of disloyalty. Isn’t betting against your team the very essence of disloyalty? We still don’t know why he did it. That’s the truly mystifying part. The panel discounted match-fixing and ruled out any notion that he tried in any sinister way to influence the game to bring up his bet. Once he stops breathing his sighs of relief at such a lenient punishment and the undeserved support of his employers which followed in its wake, Black might want to explain what he was thinking. The bet, as part of the accumulator, flew in the face of form and logic and integrity, it was against the rules of the game and against the spirit of the dressing room. For breaking the one rule that most football people (McCoist excluded, it seems) say cannot be broken, Black will serve a three-game ban. Hard to fathom, just like his bizarre wager at Ochilview that day.
  12. I see TLB's poop troop got beat 2-0 by Shakhter Karagandy over in Kazakhstan earlier.
  13. http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2565&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=12361 As if we haven't got enough going on.
  14. The Inverness midfielder has been cleared by a Scottish FA tribunal. Greg Tansey has won his appeal against a red card shown to him during Inverness Caledonian Thistle’s weekend defeat to Celtic. The Caley midfielder was sent off by referee Stevie O’Reilly in the first half of the fixture, with the official ruling the player had committed an act of violent conduct in a collision with Georgios Samaras. The offence committed has been downgraded to a "careless foul" and the player will have no punishment or yellow card recorded against him. Following the outcome of the appeal, Tansey will now escape a two-match suspension and is immediately available for selection for Terry Butcher. The Inverness boss appeared in front of the Scottish FA at Hampden on Thursday to state the case for his player, with the club’s £1,000 appeal fee and travel costs paid by a local businessman. Speaking shortly after the hearing, Butcher commented that "common sense had prevailed" in the SFA's decision. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/inverness/282055-greg-tansey-wins-red-card-appeal/ Too little too late
  15. Aberdeen forward has the severity of his punishment reduced but still faces a ban. Aberdeen striker Rory Fallon has had the red card he was shown for violent conduct downgraded on appeal. Fallon was sent off by referee Willie Collum in the dying seconds of Aberdeen's 2-1 defeat to Rangers for an apparent elbow on Dorin Goian. However, after appealing the decision, Fallon was informed that the Scottish Football Association Judicial Panel had reduced the punishment to a yellow card. Since Fallon had already been cautioned earlier in the match he will serve a one-match suspension. However, had the straight red stood, the forward would have missed two matches. Aberdeen manager Craig Brown had protested Fallon's innocence and claimed that he had the backing of Rangers counterpart Ally McCoist who was happy to give evidence in Fallon's defence. http://sport.stv.tv/football/scottish-premier/aberdeen/277562-rory-fallon-s-red-card-downgraded-on-appeal/
  16. Ibrox club face UEFA ban if HMRC liability forces them to start again as new company, finds Andrew Smith RANGERS face the prospect of three years without European football if forced to start a new company because of the HMRC tax case. The licence required to contest UEFA competitions can only be obtained by clubs that have been members of their national association for three years. If Rangers enter administration then fail to strike a deal with their creditors, the prospect of starting up again as a new company becomes a realistic possibility, but one UEFA is alert to. â??If a club sets up a new company simply to avoid paying its debts or obligations then they would almost certainly fail the three-year rule,â? a spokesperson for UEFA told Scotland On Sunday. â??This is to ensure clubs do not simply create a â??newcoâ?? and leave the previous entity in charge of dealing with debts.â? Rangers owner Craig Whyte, below, admitted last week that the Ibrox club could go into administration if they lost their ongoing tax tribunal with HMRC over the use of Employment Benefit Trusts and were landed with a £49 million tax bill. One possible option in that scenario, he conceded, would be to form a â??New Rangersâ?, with the assets, but none of the debts, transferred from the old Rangers FC. Financial fair play is a key plank of Michel Platiniâ??s UEFA administration and the strict licensing criteria were applied in the summer in the case of the Romanian club Timisoara. They finished second in their top league but were denied entry to the Champions League and demoted to the second tier of their domestic set-up because they failed to meet the licensing criteria. Following a failed appeal by Timisoara to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, UEFA made the following statement: â??Clubs are not allowed to change their legal form or structure in order to obtain a licence, simply by â??cleaning upâ?? their balance sheet while offloading debts â?? thus harming creditors (including employees and social/tax authorities) as well as threatening the integrity of sporting competition. Any such alteration of a clubâ??s legal form or structure is deemed to be an interruption to its membership of a UEFA member association and consequently three years must pass before a club can apply again for a UEFA licence. In other words, the three-year rule is designed basically to avoid circumvention of the club licensing system.â? It appears difficult to see how Whyte could avoid administration if Rangersâ?? tax case goes the way of HMRC. In these circumstances, to exit administration as the same entity they went into it, Rangers would need to obtain a Creditors Voluntary Agreement â?? wherein creditors accept a pence-in-the-pound fraction of the sums owed to them. Insolvent companies need to have agreement that covers 75 per cent of their debt. HMRC has a policy of not voting for CVAs. If HMRC wins the tax case with Rangers, it will be owed more than two-thirds of the Ibrox clubâ??s debt. Rangers, then, would have to form a new company that would have to apply for membership of the Scottish Premier League. On entering administration, the club would be hit with the automatic ten-point penalty. If Rangers cannot exit administration via a CVA any further punishment would be at the discretion of the SPL board, whose role it would also be to decide on what basis Rangers would be allowed to transfer their SPL share to a new company. The six-man SPL board comprises Ralph Topping (chairman), Neil Doncaster (chief executive), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Derek Weir (Motherwell) and Steven Brown (St Johnstone). If it were to come to a vote for Rangersâ?? re-admission, it could mean Celticâ??s Riley deciding on the fate of his clubâ??s arch-rivals. But the reality is that SPL clubs are likely to allow a reconstituted Rangers back into the fold because without them the championship and its television and sponsorship deals would be devalued, with serious financial implications for the member clubs. Like the very bank that allowed the Ibrox club to rack up huge debts across the past decade, in terms of Scottish football, Rangers are simply too big to be allowed to fail. http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/sport/rangers_run_risk_of_three_year_euro_exile_if_they_lose_tax_case_1_1938625
  17. The prepack route for Rangers Newco FC In the event of Rangers facing financial Armageddon after the resumption of their HMRC tax hearing a quick – very quick – recovery scenario is available to them. At any point during next month’s hearing they may consider their position is no longer tenable and, unable to meet the tax bill, a new company could be formed which attempts a prepack administration. A prepack offer from a new company, for example, Rangers Newco FC Ltd, would offer an administrator a deal for all assets of the club, including stadium and offer to meet outstanding player wages. Deals like this seldom offer unsecured creditors much but even a small percentage might realise more cash than the administrator would gamble on raising in an unstructured sale. In such circumstances, the administrator could accept as little as £4m for the unsecured creditors. In normal business Rangers Newco FC Ltd would begin trading and this would be the end of the story but football is not normal business. Rangers Newco FC would own a stadium and would employ some footballers but they would not be part of any league structure. They would need to apply for membership to the Scottish Football League or Scottish Premier League. In this scenario, the death of Rangers Football Club would leave a vacancy in the SPL, presenting several financial, logistical and sporting challenges. Without Rangers, the league would have to invalidate all this season’s results involving the club, one team would be without a game each weekend for the rest of the season, current TV contracts and sponsorship deals could be jeopardised, while future contracts would be worth a fraction of their current values. Every team in the league would have to downsize and some would have to win fresh support from their bankers, which may or may not be forthcoming. There is, of course, a resolution to this problem. Rangers Newco FC Ltd could present an offer to the SPL. The new company, with its stadium and thousands of potential supporters, could take the obligatory 10 point punishment for going into administration and adopt the place of Rangers FC, complete their fixtures and allow every other team in the league to fulfil commercial obligations. If these events took place before Christmas, Rangers Newco FC could be debt-free and signing players in January to enhance their league challenge. To force the deal through, Rangers Newco FC would require 10 of the remaining 11 SPL clubs to vote in their favour. If any two clubs stand against them, they would have to apply for membership of the Scottish Football League, but, having researched this story for several days, I expect Rangers Newco FC Ltd would get enough support to pick-up the place of the defunct Rangers FC. Any natural sympathies towards Rangers aside (which will not exist in all places), money talks and, apart from Celtic, this league is neck-deep in debt. Celtic might be in a position to survive Rangers failing but it would cost our club tens of millions. Crucially, if the other SPL clubs back Rangers Newco FC, they create a template for a snap recovery from their own troubles. Instead of repaying your debts, simply get yourself into a safe league position, ditch the company, prepack and start again with a clean sheet. This would create a clear incentive to stiff creditors. While the banks will get wise and not offer unsecured facilities in future, HMRC and small traders are likely to become perennial fall guys. Why would any mid-table team pay millions in tax, rates and policing bills, when they have a sporting incentive to ditch creditors without punitive penalty, freeing income streams to buy football bling in the next transfer window? This would make a mockery of the Uefa predident Michele Platini’s Financial Fair Play initiative and make our league the poster-boy for Financial Doping. Scottish football will be mortally wounded if it were to parachute a club straight into the upper echelons of the game while establishing a blueprint for the abandonment of creditors. It is incumbent on all who care about the game, in Scotland and throughout the world, that we insist Scottish Premier League clubs do not allow a prepack company to phoenix into the shoes of a dead football club. Celtic fans, as well as those from Aberdeen, Hibernian, Dundee United and St Johnstone, together with fans from Motherwell, who could become genuine championship contenders, and from those clubs who would avoid relegation if Rangers failed, must insist their club votes against any prepack company parachuting into the league. The SFA executive must use whatever influence it can to prevent the name of Scottish football being brought into disrepute. Politicians, who either have, or aspire to have, tax raising responsibilities, must register their abhorrence that a self-serving oligopoly should attempt to vote themselves an escape from paying tax. Fifa and Uefa must explain to the Scottish FA that the days of shady financial deals in football are gone. Watch the media coverage of these events carefully. If and when the decision time comes, the case to acquiesce to Rangers Newco’s demands will be overwhelming. Sincere ‘impartial’ observers will do their upmost to convince us all we must do whatever necessary to save Rangers for the good of the Scottish game. Some voices will even tell you Celtic need Rangers Newco. Whatever part of my club is dependent on Rangers I am willing to lose. Rangers-HMRC tax hearing resumes next month, when there is also a two week international break. The most important element of making a prepack offer succeed is to offer a fait accompli: ‘Here is a solution, you have no time and you have no alternative’. Should Rangers go into administration, I believe this is a very, likely scenario. If you are a supporter of Celtic or any other club, make your views known. taken from celticquicknews.co.uk (link removed) :tongue: :spl::spl::spl:
  18. PEOPLE used to call Walter Smith defensive. But compared to yer man Craig Whyte, the old silver fox was Jimmy Calderwood going 2-4-4-1. With his goalie up front as the one. There's an old saying that if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide. And it's run round my head again and again this week in regards to the new Rangers owner. Why IS he so secretive? Why DOES he bristle quite so angrily over any kind of criticism? I mean, he's done one truly impressive thing since taking over at Ibrox and that was to turn up at the first Old Firm game of the season alongside a blonde with a cleavage like Kenny McDowall jumping to head a Mitre. Yet here we are, more than a month on, and her name STILL hasn't come out. And in this day and age of celebrity tittle-tattle, that takes some doing. So if this is how closely he wants to keep his socialising to his chest, what chance is there of him letting his guard down when it comes to his hush-hush business affairs? Some men in his position would have dared the Beeb to come ahead with this week's documentary then gone to war if and when anything iffy was broadcast. Yet Whyte had the wagons in a circle before the apaches even appeared over the hill. He got his retaliation in first by banning Auntie in advance â?? a naïve piece of knee-jerkery, because the first thing his actions did was make far more people far more aware of the show than they might have been otherwise. Plus, it was a clear sign that he's not half as big a player as he wants us to think he is. Put the tackities into a Murray or a Lawwell or the like and they'll cut you out of their gang, spin a story to the opposition as their idea of punishment and make sure you're as unwelcome on their turf as humanly possible. But they take it, because they're strong enough to take it. Because they know that you're only one guy with a laptop while they're running a gigantic institution that's taken blows for 100 years and is still standing. Whyte, though, seems so brittle he makes Celtic's central defence look like Baresi and Maldini. He's actually very like Romanov in the way he deals with the outside world, the Lithuanian's insecurities highlighted once again by a media blackout in the wake of his manager criticising a referee; a blackout that comes by pure coincidence at a time when players are speaking out about unpaid wages. If Romanov thinks people can't see through stunts like this then it's a miracle that he ever made himself into one of his country's most powerful tycoons. And if Whyte thinks shutting out a national broadcaster will stop people asking questions about his ability to bankroll Rangers, he's even more like Tim Nice-But-Dim than he appears. Anyone who's been in debt knows nothing gets better till you stop hiding the final demands and start facing up to your problems. It seems for all the world like Whyte's actions this week are those of a man in denial about the weight of the worries he's taken on. If that's not the case, why is it that RANGERS are refusing to deal with the Beeb and not just the man himself? After all, apart from the fact that their name was in the title of the documentary, there was barely a word of criticism about the club. It was all about Whyte. Yet he felt the need to throw stones at his attackers from behind the red brick of the main stand. As for that criticism itself? Well, I'd love to go through it here with a fine-toothed comb, because some of it was serious stuff indeed. But, true to form, before the opening titles had run, Whyte's lawyers were issuing dire warnings of what they would do should any allegations be repeated in print. So I'll ask again: What's he scared of? If, as he says, it's all a pack of lies, why not face it down and tell us WHY it's a pack of lies; because just saying it is isn't enough. And let me say this. If there's one journalist out there in whom I'd put 100 per cent faith, it's Mark Daly, the man who fronted this investigation. I've known him since he was a kid on the local paper in Clydebank and his track record is there for all to see. He's infiltrated Greater Manchester Police to weed out racist officers, got to the bottom of the Royal Bank of Scotland's collapse and probed the Stephen Lawrence murder. He's a top-drawer, old-school digger who doesn't hang his theories on "insiders" and "sources". The spine of his documentary was an interview with Robert Burns, head of the UK Insolvency Service, the organisation dealing with every company that goes down the pan. It would be hard to imagine Mr Burns going on camera and on the record if he wasn't sure of what he was on about. Yet Whyte calls the documentary and its makers biased, despite it being stated on camera that they asked him more than once to give his side of the story. As he took the decision to refuse, maybe his definition of biased is different to the dictionary's. All in all, he's an odd one, is Craig Whyte. You take a Duncan Bannatyne or an Alan Sugar and they can't wait to tell the world how they made their squillions. Along the way, that means the world finding out stuff they'd probably rather it didn't. But in the end, they shrug and move on, because they know that the good stuff on the CV far outweighs it. You'd think that Whyte would be the same, that if he was big enough to run Rangers, he'd also be big enough to deal with the odd black mark he may have against him in the past. But then, that's the biggest unanswered question of all. Whether he IS big enough. Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/3888799/Why-do-you-feel-the-need-to-stay-in-shadows.html#ixzz1beY4wsf2
  19. Ref: http://themondaysupplement.co.uk/headline/uefa-set-to-punish-celtic-and-rangers-for-craig-levein%E2%80%99s-no%E2%80%93show/? Haha.
  20. I posted this in TBO/UB statement thread,but thought it deserves a thread of it's own. Admin can delete this thread if they disagree. Hi everyone, ****** has kindly let me post on this, I'm actually the boy who had the water bottle. I had came straight from work still in my shirt, tie and had the water in my bag, My bag was emptied at the turnstiles where the police allowed me to continue into the ground with the water in my bag, The policeman watched over by a steward emptied my bag and said everything that was in it was OK to go in with. At half time i took a drink of the water and 10 or so mins later the stewards and police made there way into the rows throwing there weight around telling me to "get the feck over here" i then tried to make my way to the stewards but as i done this members of the UB started to pull me away as they saw i was about to be arrested! The steward then started pushing people over and even man handled a female sitting in front of me, as this happened i ended up 4 rows up! when i was caught and took to the room the steward was violent and aggressive towards me and a fellow fan claiming we were insulting his intelligence and we should speak when asked to speak, The policeman who took my details was the policeman who searched my bag. My season card was confiscated and i was told i would find out in the next 3 days whats happening, Yesterday whilst i was at work Head of security at Ibrox informed my mum that i would not be getting my season ticket back and i would face a ban under the account of the following " bringing a bottle of water into the ground which led to a breach which could causee a disaster and for then resisting arrest whilst making dirogitry comments about the government and the police" My mum said to him that i was approved entry with the bottle and asked to view the CCTV and the head of security then replied that CCTV would not be available and there will be no further action if i accept my punishment and serve my ban and if i wish to appeal CCTV will not be used as evidence for some reason i do not know? and that I will be charged by the club for breaking the rule of bringing in controlled containers and causing a breach/disturbance/upset whiten the crowed and for also resisting arrest. Just wanted you guys to know the real story!
  21. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/aug/23/jock-wallace-hard-football-manager The Leicester Hill: http://bentleysroof.magnify.net/video/Jock-Wallaces-Hill-2;search:WALLACE# Murder Hill:
  22. Can't get a picture uploaded here at work,but it reads SAVE BRENDAN LILLIS. ALEX KANE: Should Lillis be shown compassion? Published on Monday 8 August 2011 08:38 IN 1977 Provisional IRA member Brendan Lillis was sentenced to life imprisonment. Passing sentence, the judge said: ââ?¬Å?No doubt if you had not been caught you would have continued your bombing campaign for an indefinite period.ââ?¬Â As a member of the Provisional IRA, Lillis would have read and signed up to the terms and conditions of the IRA Green Book; conditions which embraced paragraphs about the moral and political superiority of their terror campaign, loyalty to the IRA and particularly the paragraph which said: ââ?¬Ë?It is these strong convictions which bond the army (the IRA) into one force and before any volunteer decides to join the army he must have these strong convictions. Convictions which are strong enough to give him confidence to kill someone without hesitation and without regret.ââ?¬â?¢ How much compassion should society show to an ill prisoner who was a member of an organisation whose members had the confidence to kill without hesitation and regret? How much compassion should it show to an emaciated cripple who is probably physically incapable of posing a threat to anyone? In the case of Brendan Lillis, the answers are not as clear cut as you might think, for in 1993 he was shown some compassion and clemency when he was released from prison on licence after serving only 16 years of his life sentence. Yet in October 2009 his licence was revoked after he was arrested in a field behind a house where police had just foiled a tiger kidnapping. He was charged with conspiring to kidnap, falsely imprison and rob three people in the house, two of whom were employees of the Northern Bank. Ill health since then has left him unfit to stand trial. But itââ?¬â?¢s worth bearing in mind that no-one campaigning for his release is doing so on the grounds that he is an innocent man, unlawfully and unfairly detained. I am not a vindictive man. If I were an MP I would not be voting for the return of capital punishment, even in the cases of terrorism or child killers. I accepted the early release of republican and loyalist prisoners at the time of the Good Friday Agreement because I believed that it would probably help to create a more stable and peaceful Northern Ireland. It was, of course, a calculated risk and I said so at the time. I also accepted the possibility that some of those released from prison would end up in the assembly and executive. To my mind Lillis was given the opportunity to begin a new life back in 1993. He knew the terms and conditions of his release, just as he knew the terms and conditions of the IRA Green Book when he joined it back in the early 1970s. I have no idea if he was involved in any criminal activity between his early release and his re-arrest in 2009, although it seems reasonable enough to conjecture (if he actually is guilty, of course) that he didnââ?¬â?¢t just get a phone call out of the blue asking him if he fancied going back to a life of crime and risking having his licence revoked. So, letââ?¬â?¢s go back to the earlier questions. How much compassion should be shown to someone who seems to have turned his back on the chance to reform and rehabilitate himself? How much compassion should be shown to a man who has been confined to a bed in the hospital ward at Maghaberry prison since January and who has been, so we are told, increasingly frail since he was returned to prison in October 2009? Others have posed another question: isnââ?¬â?¢t there the risk of creating another republican martyr if Lillis is allowed to die in prison? Compassion has a role to play in every area of life: it is one of the civilising aspects of our existence. But compassion has to be earned. It isnââ?¬â?¢t a right (although the ninnies of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission would probably love to make it so!). Compassion cannot be guaranteed just because someone is too physically ill to remain an active or potential threat to individuals in particular or society in general. Early release should never be an expectation for those who become ill while serving a sentence. Just look at the remarkable recovery made by the Lockerbie bomber after his release! And there are other examples, too. What about the prospect of making a martyr for republicanism? The 10 dead hunger strikers achieved absolutely nothing. They may be venerated in some republican circles, but the sight of a hobbled Sinn Fein shackled to the DUP makes a mockery of their so-called sacrifice. Anyway, for Sinn Fein and dissident republicans, martyrs tend to be two-a-penny: capable of being invented, elevated or simply hijacked as and when the occasion demands it. To be brutally honest about it, I have absolutely no doubt that some of those campaigning for early release are doing so for their own ends rather than for his. And there are probably others who hope he does die inside, hoping to exploit his death and funeral for political and propaganda purposes. David Ford has a very difficult decision to make. If the decision were mine, I would have huge reservations about a ââ?¬Ë?compassionateââ?¬â?¢ approach, not least because Lillis himself and some of the people supporting his release have displayed no compassion in their own previous activities. Similarly, releasing him because of the possibility of martyrdom sends a very dangerous message. It may well be the case that Lillis needs specialist treatment. So be it, transfer him to a hospital where he can get 24-hour supervision and attention. But that doesnââ?¬â?¢t require his ââ?¬Ë?releaseââ?¬â?¢, pardon, freedom or a get-out-of-jail-free card: if he can be made well enough for trial then let him be tried. Surely clearing his name and proving his innocence is just as important to him and his family as getting him back on his feet again? Illness and death are inescapable facts of life and in this case it seems to me that Brendan Lillisââ?¬â?¢s circumstances and present location are mostly of his own making. His illness is not linked to his offences (proved or alleged) nor his imprisonment. Personally, I cannot make a credible argument for either compassion or freedom in his case. Neither the cause of justice or mercy would be served by releasing him. http://www.newsletter.co.uk/community/columnists/alex_kane_should_lillis_be_shown_compassion_1_2942637
  23. Lemon the timebomb was pictured running on to the field during play in the game v ICT - the ref took no action, does this mean video evidence can be used to make an example of him?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.