Statement on Whyte by the club

[craig 5,199]

With all due respect, if he has broken rules should it just be left alone?

 

The rules he broke were prior to his taking over Rangers and, in fact, was extinguished prior to his taking over Rangers. Given his ban was served why should the SFA get involved ?

 

EDIT : I can see from the SFA rules that he could be in contravention of the rules.

 

That particular rule is ambiguous, although given a suspension is for 7 years it makes no sense for the 5 yrs to be from the start of the disqualification because you will invariably still be disqualified when you come out of the SFA's 5 yr period.

Edited December 2, 2011 by craig

[ian1964 10,430]

The rules he broke were prior to his taking over Rangers and, in fact, was extinguished prior to his taking over Rangers. Given his ban was served why should the SFA get involved ?

 

Liewell..........................??

[BrahimHemdani 1]

That particular rule is ambiguous, although given a suspension is for 7 years it makes no sense for the 5 yrs to be from the start of the disqualification because you will invariably still be disqualified when you come out of the SFA's 5 yr period.

 

With respect, Craig, the rule isn't ambiguous at all, for the very reason you state, namely that any other interpretation would be illogical.

[craig 5,199]

With respect, Craig, the rule isn't ambiguous at all, for the very reason you state, namely that any other interpretation would be illogical.

 

With all due respect, if something is open to interpretation it is ambiguous. At least in my opinion.

 

What you stated earlier that if it were from the start of the disqualification the language would say that it was from the start, which is quite correct. But just as easily the language could have stated it was 5 yrs from the expiry of such disqualification.

 

Now, I do still agree with you it HAS to be the end of the disqualification due to the 5 yr vs 7 yr ruling - but that doesnt mean that the rule is any less ambiguous, IMO.

 

Poorly worded regulation IMO.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

With all due respect, if something is open to interpretation it is ambiguous. At least in my opinion.

 

What you stated earlier that if it were from the start of the disqualification the language would say that it was from the start, which is quite correct. But just as easily the language could have stated it was 5 yrs from the expiry of such disqualification.

 

Now, I do still agree with you it HAS to be the end of the disqualification due to the 5 yr vs 7 yr ruling - but that doesnt mean that the rule is any less ambiguous, IMO.

 

Poorly worded regulation IMO.

 

I agree it's poorly worded but I still maintain that the intent is obvious because the other intepretation makes no sense at all.

 

Semantics I know!

[der Berliner 3,271]

Dunno, this 5 year thing of the SFA would be unreasonable only in Whyte's case. I do assume though that you can be disqualified as a company director for much less time, or maybe even for life. By common sense, it seems that the SFA ruling starts after the disqualification is served. That though would be a double penalty on the person for the same case (handed out by an organisation who is qualified to judge on these non-football matters in what way exactly?) and I would assume any judge or lawmaker would concur.

[craig 5,199]

I agree it's poorly worded but I still maintain that the intent is obvious because the other intepretation makes no sense at all.

 

Semantics I know!

 

I dont disagree.

 

I am no lawyer but you would have to think that a competent lawyer would be able to drive a bus through that legislation. Just because it makes no sense it doesnt mean that it couldnt be challenged. Plenty of times we see legislation that makes no sense when interpreted a certain way... yet the judgement agrees with the "no sense" position.

 

I dont think anything will come of it anyway. Rangers could very easily say "sorry, didnt realise that", have Whyte resign from the Board with immediate effect, then get re-elected in a few months time.

[Zappa 0]

Poorly worded regulation IMO.

 

Poorly worded statement on Whyte by the club too (as Bluedell pointed out).

 

Regarding the poorly worded SFA regs: I thought that was supposed to be getting sorted out? Were they not supposed to be re-writing them/having them re-written?

[craig 5,199]

BTW, good to see you back on Gersnet BH

[craig 5,199]

Poorly worded statement on Whyte by the club too (as Bluedell pointed out).

 

Regarding the poorly worded SFA regs: I thought that was supposed to be getting sorted out? Were they not supposed to be re-writing them/having them re-written?

 

They wont have been completed yet - that will be a sizeable task Zappa.

 

I think that the wording by the club was deliberately misleading - I find it hard to believe that they made an "honest mistake" on the same thing twice (once by not declaring to PLUS and once when they did). Makes little sense to me.