stewarty 1,876 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 "Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination". What does this mean? Silly question but have the SFA broke there own rules and made up a punishment? What was the maximum punishment they could inflict for a breach of this sort? Was it just the fine I wonder? Basically saying it wasn't within the criteria of sanctions available to them that could be applied. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gers4Life 0 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Rangers have lost their appeal against a £160,000 fine and 12-month transfer embargo imposed by the Scottish Football Association. Administration-hit Rangers were hit by the sanctions by an SFA judicial panel last month but had hoped to overturn the decision at an appellate tribunal hearing on Wednesday. But in findings released late on Wednesday night by the SFA, the club were told they had no grounds for reversing the decision. The hearing, which was chaired by Lord Carloway and also included Spartans chairman Craig Graham and former Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan, heard the Ibrox club's representations through Richard Keen QC. The tribunal's full report will be published at a later date but it released several key points by way of summary. They included the following observations: "It was competent for the disciplinary tribunal to impose the additional sanction of prohibiting registrations of any new players of 18 years or older for a period of 12 months. "The disciplinary tribunal was correct to determine that the conduct involved - especially the deliberate non-payment of very large sums, estimated in excess of £13m of tax in the form of PAYE, NIC and VAT - was attributable to the club as a member of the Scottish FA. "Although the Appellate Tribunal has listened carefully to the representations from Rangers FC about the practical effects of the additional sanction, it has concluded that this sanction was proportionate to the breach, dissuasive to others and effective in the context of serious misconduct, bringing the game into disrepute." Rangers fear the inability to sign and register senior players for a full year would be debilitating to their on-field prospects, but the panel concluded that they had sufficient resources already at their disposal to remain viable. "The appellate tribunal recognises that the disciplinary tribunal decision does not affect Rangers' ability to extend the contracts of existing professional players, including those whose contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those currently on loan to other clubs," the statement continued. "The appellate tribunal observes that Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category." When the punishment was initially handed down, Rangers were found guilty of five charges in relation to their financial affairs and appointment of Craig Whyte as chairman. Rangers received the ban and the bulk of their fine mainly because of a disrepute charge borne from their non-payment of more than £13million in taxes since Whyte took over Sir David Murray's shareholding in May last year. Whyte, who made no representation at the three-day hearing, was given a lifetime ban from Scottish football and fined £200,000 but has told the SFA the punishment will have no impact on his life. The SFA also published the judicial panel's rationale for their punishment in a lengthy document last Friday. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigy 0 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 "Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination". What does this mean? Silly question but have the SFA broke there own rules and made up a punishment? What was the maximum punishment they could inflict for a breach of this sort? Was it just the fine I wonder? The sanction is not explicitly listed within the SFA rule book under the areas we've been found guilty, but there is a line within the rulebook which states something along the lines of 'any other form of punishment deemed appropriate'. The 12 month transfer embargo has been applied under that broad brush. Interestingly, one of the sanctions which was listed was exclusion from the Scottish Cup, but the SFA wouldn't want to lose any sponsor or tv revenue now, would they? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gers4Life 0 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Rangers fear the inability to sign and register senior players for a full year would be debilitating to their on-field prospects, but the panel concluded that they had sufficient resources already at their disposal to remain viable. "The appellate tribunal recognises that the disciplinary tribunal decision does not affect Rangers' ability to extend the contracts of existing professional players, including those whose contracts will expire at the end of this season and including also those currently on loan to other clubs," the statement continued. "The appellate tribunal observes that Rangers FC have over 40 professional players in this category." Is that before the fire sale starts with our players??? Fuck the sfa!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,411 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 "Such a sanction was not available to the tribunal and should not have been imposed and it is the intention of the club to challenge the determination". What does this mean? Silly question but have the SFA broke there own rules and made up a punishment? What was the maximum punishment they could inflict for a breach of this sort? Was it just the fine I wonder? Check this out mate: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/304757-why-the-sfa-havent-breached-their-rules-in-banning-rangers-from-signing-players/ 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The sanction is not explicitly listed within the SFA rule book under the areas we've been found guilty, but there is a line within the rulebook which states something along the lines of 'any other form of punishment deemed appropriate'. The 12 month transfer embargo has been applied under that broad brush. Interestingly, one of the sanctions which was listed was exclusion from the Scottish Cup, but the SFA wouldn't want to lose any sponsor or tv revenue now, would they? Indeed. I am reminded of one of my favourite comics "The Watchmen" when it asks "Who Watches the Watchmen" The SFA's hands are far from clean in this matter. They sat back and did nothing when there was clearly "strange" goings on at a member club. They should be held accountable for allowing it to get to this stage! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,411 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I still say we went into administration under one set of rules so we should be allowed to exit administration under the same rules,this fucking stinks 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimson Dynamo 128 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Check this out mate: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/304757-why-the-sfa-havent-breached-their-rules-in-banning-rangers-from-signing-players/ Is it me? Or does it seem ridiculous to say if you don't think the punishment is enough already. Then you can just make something else up to go along with it. To me it seems that is what they did and apparently from reading the above they can do this. Edited May 17, 2012 by Crimson Dynamo 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 That's a staggering and imcompetent decision and the fact that it's been dealt with so quickly is a clear sign that the appeal process was fixed due to the decision having been made prior to the appeal hearing even offically starting. It's not the first time I've thought that an SFA decision had been pre-judged this season either. The SFA's incompetence as well as bizarre and questionable strategies under Regan's tenure is bringing Scottish Football into disrepute FAR more than Rangers ever have. Regan's SFA have clearly set up a kangaroo court system for judging disciplinary matters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,411 Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Lord Carloway, Chair Of The SFA Appeal Panel !!! http://www.scotsman.com/news/famine-song-is-racist-not-free-speech-judges-rule-1-1043091 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.