Darthter 542 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 @Calscot If I'm reading your post correctly, you are suggesting that for a club to be successful, it needs be run outwith its means??? This is how Man City, Chelsea etc are run, and yes they have been successful. But what about the likes of Portsmouth??? They have tried to follow the successful teams in spending big, and they're paying for it now. What would happen if Chelsea or Man City's owners left?? What would happen to Hearts if Mad Vlad simply walked away??? Basic rule of ANY business - Make more than you spend!!! Why can't that result in a successful football team??? Financially, Motherwell are one club that appear to be running soundly. I believe they posted a profit of £540k for year 2010/2011, and they have been very successful this season in the league. I don't see why a football club should be ANY different from other businesses!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 95, and not 94.1 is the relevant part. Why is that? What is rule 95? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Why is that? What is rule 95? I take it, it is the panel has the power to impose any sanction it sees fit while totally ignoring suitable sanctions written down in front them. Of course whose sanctions would've had a direct effect on the SFA run tournaments and that will never do. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I take it, it is the panel has the power to impose any sanction it sees fit while totally ignoring suitable sanctions written down in front them. Of course whose sanctions would've had a direct effect on the SFA run tournaments and that will never do. Does anyone have the exact wording? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Does anyone have the exact wording? â??The Judicial Panel shall have the jurisdiction, subject to the terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol, to deal with any alleged infringement of any provision of these articles. â??Aâ?¦ clubâ?¦ if found to have infringed the articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion from the Challenge Cup [scottish Cup] Competition, to any combination of these penalties or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate, including such other sanctions as are contained within the Judicial Panel Protocol, in order to deal justly with the case in question.â? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Their carte blanche, as I take it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Their carte blanche, as I take it. Get out of jail card. Make it up as we go along card. As long as the Rangers cash cow is still there but crippled card. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Their carte blanche, as I take it. Not quite. They can't hand out anything more than the maximum penalty for a charge. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 What doesn't add up for me is the 2nd only to match fixing charge. Presumably match fixing would warrant expulsion; how come the penalty we get 'drops' dramatically to an embargo? By the tribunal's logic, a far higher sanction (suspension, demotion, whatever) ought to have been applied. I know I'm arguing that they've been too lenient but I mean to show up the lack of joined up thinking here. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Not quite. They can't hand out anything more than the maximum penalty for a charge. Embargo is not a penalty they just pulled that one out of thin air, why not expulsion from the league or cup. Of course we all know why, they need our money pulling power. Sanctions the panel considers appropriate, gives them Carte Blanche to do what they want. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.