SFA sanction Appeal Rejected - Official.

[tangent60 0]

The best strategy for Rangers is to continue to fund legal practitioners to pursue legal strategies to defend Rangers' interests.

 

I took a quick read of the official output on the Rangers.co.uk this morning, and thought that Mr Keen's approach was sound.

 

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2775049

 

While the exact details of the approach are not set-out (and nor should they be), some clues are given.

 

(1) The early paragraphs (in particular, the third and fourth paragraphs) reveal that arguments will be made against the competency of the prior decisions against the club (and inparticular, the transfer ban I would assume). This is a good approach, and one that I think is on strong ground.

 

(2) The latter (Jardine) paragraphs, in my opinion, focus on mitigating factors. This is because, ultimately, you cannot (yet) lift the "corporate veil" to get at individual directors (although there have been some rare instances of that, but they are arguably not representative of the general law). The company remains culpable. So, it is my opinion that, at best, Jardine's comments in the latter paragraphs (which are representative of broad-based fan views in my opinion) relate to prior evidence that can be described as mitigating factors only. (Out of interest, mitigating factors may be enough to see a penalty reduced, albeit not set aside.)

 

There may also be other arguments that have not been hinted at on the official site.

Edited May 17, 2012 by tangent60

[Bluedell 5,329]

This is because, ultimately, you cannot (yet) lift the "corporate veil" to get at individual directors (although there have been some rare instances of that, but they are arguably not representative of the general law). The company remains culpable.

 

The page you link to doesn't have much on it now.

 

In respect of the point on the corporate veil, that would be the situation in normal corporate law, but we are not looking at that situation. I'd argue that it's irrelevant when looking at us. A "normal" company" would not be prevented from hiring new employees.

 

It's ridiculous that there are a set of punishments for our "crime" and they just ignore them.

 

There is also the inconsistency with other administrations. If we had paid HMRC the PAYE and not paid other creditors, would be still have been found guilty of bringing the game ino disrepute? Administration is because a company cannot meet its liabilities. Does it matter if we pay A and don#'t pay B or vice versa?

 

If we as a club are being charged for deliberately not paying someone over a period of time than that suggests wrongful trading and it's the directors of the company, and not the company itself that should be charged for that crime.

 

I'd also suiggest that the SFA finding us (or whyte) being guilty of this could prejudice any legal investigations going on and they may find themselves in a bit of trouble.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Bluedell