Wrong road. Who's leading us?

[caseyjones 0]

I think this is a quick action to get judicial opinion on whether the club have a case - possibly to indicate if a trip to the CAS is worth it.

 

For that reason I doubt there would be any UEFA/FIFA censure as it stands.

 

Agreed. This is between a national association and one of it's members.

[aweebluesoandso 290]

You appear to be having difficulty distinguishing between the SPL and the SFA with regards to sanctions.

 

Most likely, but my point is we have been punished, why are the SFA imposing further punishent? also we don't have to meekly accept the SFA's ( outwith the current rules) punishment

[Guest millersrightboot]

see in news today that Clark claims that he or his Lawyers knew nothing about Fifa rules regarding

clubs from taking football matters to the law courts

 

this looks to me like a very calculated move by D&F to make sure we end up a new Co

this whole saga stinks

[caseyjones 0]

Most likely, but my point is we have been punished, why are the SFA imposing further punishent? also we don't have to meekly accept the SFA's ( outwith the current rules) punishment

 

We were punished by the SPL with a ten point deduction for entering administration. This was due to us being a member of the SPL.

 

We were then given a series of fines and the conditional transfer embargo for breaking various SFA rules. This was because we are a member of the SFA.

 

If we are given sanctions by the SFL, while not being a member, I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with you.

[der Berliner 3,280]

see in news today that Clark claims that he or his Lawyers knew nothing about Fifa rules regarding

clubs from taking football matters to the law courts

 

this looks to me like a very calculated move by D&F to make sure we end up a new Co

this whole saga stinks

 

 

But is it really football matters that the SFA are imposing? Or is it something about employment matters for companies. That is something D&P and the club look to clarify.

 

There was another article in today's Scotsman saying that the SPL have no right to punish us further for being in admin, even if we are still there next season or a newco happens by - under current legislation. A team suffers a 10-point deduction per administration event and thus we will not go into next season with a 10-point penalty, since it is the same administration event. Like it was the case with Motherwell. The SFA has already penalized us, so it would be rather strange if they impose something else for the same matter. What may be levelled against us is the double-contract thing, but we'll have to wait and see. ...

 

WITH administrators Duff & Phelps announcing that they are ready to issue a Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA) proposal which will be finalised – or not – by 13 June, the immediate future looks brighter for Rangers.

 

But what happens if the CVA is rejected? The most likely answer is that the Rangers’ company will be liquidated and the club will survive as a new company in the SPL, with no further sanctions against them at this time.

 

Rangers will have to apply to stay in the SPL as a newco. If five clubs vote against them, the 140-year-old institution will cease to play football for the foreseeable future, unless the Scottish Football League admits them on an emergency basis – an extraordinary general meeting would be needed, called by 12 member clubs, and certain rules such as those that specify grounds and colours have to be registered with the League by 1 June would need to be set aside.

 

League sources confirm there is no automatic right of entry into the SFL for any club, which is why the newco route into the SPL will be the way ahead for Rangers should the CVA deal fall through.

 

That Rangers sought a judicial review over the one-year transfer embargo is proof of how the loss of the ability to buy in the transfer market – Green has close links to agents through his previous involvement with the ProActive Sports Management company – may fatally damage his CVA plans, leaving only the newco route to survival.

 

Talk of sanctioning the newco as it enters the SPL is a waste of breath. Though this will anger fans of other clubs, any attempt to impose further penalties – at this time – on Rangers will fail for the simple reason that no such extra punishment is allowed for in the SPL rules.

 

According to the SPL rule book, the penalty for going into administration is a ten-point deduction. That’s all. The SFA has issued its fines and transfer ban and, again, the rules do not allow for further penalties. Those who argue for “sporting integrity” face this quandary – what integrity is there in making up rules and sanctions to punish a club which has already been punished to the limit under the rules?

 

SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster explained: “You have got some behaviour last year, which the SFA has dealt with and punished [by the £160,000 fines and transfer ban]. You can agree or disagree with the punishment if you wish, but the SFA have dealt with it. Rangers went into administration and they were punished under our rules.”

 

Doncaster is adamant the rule book has been followed to the letter: “All clubs are treated under the same rules in the same way. There aren’t special rules being applied.

 

“There’s the same set of rules in terms of newco that have been in place since 1998. They haven’t changed so there are no special rules being applied or adopted. Any perception that clubs are getting off scot free is wholly erroneous.”

 

Doncaster met the media last week ostensibly to talk up the new Financial Fair Play rules – “toughest in world football,” he said – which will see SPL clubs that go into administration penalised ten points or a third of their previous season’s total, whichever is the greater. The new rules also impose a transfer ban on any club failing to pay its tax liabilities, and proposes a ten-point deduction over two seasons and severe financial penalties such as withholding 75 per cent of SPL payouts to any club having to re-enter the league via a newco. The rules would change immediately but none of these changes are retrospective.

 

So, if the CVA fails, Rangers look most likely to survive as a newco in the SPL with history if not pride intact, as Doncaster conceded: “There are all manner of clubs who have come out through a CVA or a newco but no-one has ever insisted that their history stops.”

 

Rangers fans will definitely not be out of the worry zone if the club survives. The EBT dual contracts inquiry may take some time, as Doncaster agreed. “This is an enormously complicated area,” he said. “You have to ask how long it took for the HMRC case to come to fruition. These are complex areas, there is a lot to trawl through and the lawyers are working on it.”

 

But it could devastate the club all over again next season if the inquiry finds Rangers did operate dual contracts.

 

Doncaster said: “There is an ongoing investigation into payments outside of contracts. Every single action I would argue is being dealt with, or has been dealt with, appropriately. Where a club does something wrong it is penalised under the rules in every instance.

 

“You would expect the EBT investigation would continue to bind the football club.”

 

The clear implication of Doncaster’s remarks is that the rules don’t allow further sanctions on Rangers at this time, but should the club be found guilty of having operated a dual contract system, then Rangers will be heavily punished next season.

 

Being stripped of titles, as happened to Marseille and Juventus, might see those five gold stars on Rangers’ jerseys for winning 50 titles reduced to four, and the punishment could be even worse – anything from a fine to a further transfer ban, points deductions or even expulsion from the SPL.

 

Doncaster said: “There will be no special cases made for individual clubs, the rules will be applied fairly and evenly to all 12 member clubs as they always have been and as they always will be.

 

“There may be vested interests but vested interests are part of football. What’s important is that the rules are adhered to and applied.”

 

Doncaster admitted there were lots of “twists and turns” to come, and though the administration period could go on for months – Rangers would start the season ten points down in that case – the most likely outcome of a CVA failure is that the SPL clubs would decide the future of Rangers as a newco.

 

Eight chairmen would need to approve that newco. If five vote against, then Rangers would need the Scottish Football League to come to their rescue. If they don’t, Rangers FC will cease to exist

[caseyjones 0]

But is it really football matters that the SFA are imposing? Or is it something about employment matters for companies. That is something D&P and the club look to clarify.

 

There was another article in today's Scotsman saying that the SPL have no right to punish us further for being in admin, even if we are still there next season or a newco happens by - under current legislation. A team suffers a 10-point deduction per administration event and thus we will not go into next season with a 10-point penalty, since it is the same administration event. Like it was the case with Motherwell. The SFA has already penalized us, so it would be rather strange if they impose something else for the same matter. What may be levelled against us is the double-contract thing, but we'll have to wait and see. ...

 

You quote an article, but don't read the second to last paragraph?

[caseyjones 0]

A Civil Action: Recipe for Disaster?

 

The developments in Scottish football, this year, have been astonishing and rather controversial. For the sports lawyer, this is a remarkable opportunity to examine and critically analyse further the perennial battle between state regulation and self-regulation. Rangers have certainly given us this opportunity with their decision to challenge the transfer embargo imposed on them, by submitting an application to a civil court in Scotland. Irrespective of the Scottish court's decision, the question remains whether the football authorities in Scotland would impose further sanctions on Rangers as a result of this development.

 

Several views have been expressed already and many more will probably appear pending the final decision by the Scottish court. It is my normal practice to listen to all views and evaluate the efficacy and probity of the evidence available. Above all, it is also normal practice for a lawyer to always follow the law and the regulatory framework in place, before the appropriate advice is given to the client. With this in mind, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the application submitted by Rangers to the Court of Session may create several ramifications, not only for the future of the club, but for the future of Scottish football too.

 

It is a well established fact that clubs who attempt to seek remedies before national courts, may violate specific FIFA and UEFA regulations. This submission cannot be dismissed at face value nor could it be ignored at the expense of doubtful journalistic information. This may indeed make me sound arrogant or force me to come into direct collision with many of my journalist friends;*however, I am in a position to appreciate the regulatory framework and the politics of football, as I have been involved in several appeals before CAS since May 2010, on the same matter and I have also advised four clubs in Greece, one in Spain, one in Holland and one in South Africa, on the very same issues under analysis.

 

On the advice given to a client, you cannot rely on journalistic information, who could be based, most of the times, on sources who base opinions on politics rather than the law. On the facts and subject to the rules currently in place, the advice is clear and unequivocal: FIFA rules do not allow clubs to seek remedies before national courts and when clubs decide to seek such remedies before national courts, the national federations*are obliged to impose sanctions.*Similarly, UEFA Statutes also prohibit clubs from seeking redress before national courts, or any other courts of arbitration. One could appreciate, therefore, that the Rangers decision to file an application before a national court, against a decision of a purely sporting nature, is, to say the least, brave and, at the same time, quite dangerous.

 

One would also question the propriety of such decision and the advice given regarding such decision. On the face of it, an argument could be made that Rangers had no choice but to file such an application before the Court of Session. This is because the rules of the SFA do not allow for a further appeal to the CAS and the decisions of its disciplinary bodies are final and binding. Rangers do not have the time and probably the resources to challenge the legality of the rules that do not allow for an appeal to the CAS. Instead, they decided to challenge something that could, in theory, be beneficial. In terms of legal advice, the law is clear. In terms of the decision making, the risk is great. Those in charge of the decision making at Rangers would have to answer a lot of questions if the Court's decision is unfavourable to Rangers.

 

The view 'we have nothing to lose' may have prevailed, but we cannot speculate in the absence of evidence. What we can do, however, is to follow the public statements of those advising Rangers. At a first glance, the legal basis of the application before the Court of Session, appears to focus on the alleged impropriety of the sanction imposed on Rangers in relation to the transfer embargo. The club's submission is that in the absence of a relevant sanction of a transfer embargo, the disciplinary committee of the SFA exceeded its powers and 'made rules' on the go. This is, I would add, a blatant disregard of natural justice and due process. I would also add that the application may have a very good chance of being successful, given that governing bodies must adhere to their rules and ensure that all parties concerned follow the normative environment the regulator created. This, of course, incorporates the SFA's own disciplinary committees who have a duty to ensure that the rules are applied purposefully and not pedantically.

 

Given the above submissions, the application submitted by Rangers may end up being successful. This does not, however, bring a conclusion to the matter. In my opinion, the Court may come to the conclusion that the SFA's disciplinary committee did in fact exceed its powers in that it applied a sanction that is not available in the SFA's regulations. In this case, it is highly likely that the Court would deem the committee's decision void. This is not, however, going to be a reason for celebrations. The Court of Session does not have jurisdiction to apply the correct sanctions, but only to decide on the appropriateness of a decision taken by a governing body. The Court, if it accepts the application filed by Rangers, would probably send the matter back to the disciplinary committee of the SFA, so the latter could apply the correct and appropriate sanctions. In the absence of the transfer embargo sanction, it is not difficult for an independent observer to appreciate what the remaining sanctions would be. In my view, they would not be simple fines.

 

Finally, it remains to be seen, whether the SFA would enforce further sanctions against Rangers regarding the club's decision to seek remedies before a national court. If the SFA decides not to proceed further, FIFA and UEFA may decide to interfere. Again such involvement would very much depend on FIFA's and UEFA's political decision making. The examples in relation to other countries are many and self-explanatory. FIFA and UEFA have the will and the* power to interfere with the decision making of a national federation. UEFA's sanctions, in particular, on such matter, are many and range from a simple reprimand to a complete ban on the national team and the clubs. It is this latter sanction that may affect Scottish football in a very damaging way.

 

In my view, the SFA's disciplinary panel decided to apply a sanction which, under the circumstances, could be deemed to be proportionate and allow Rangers, at the same time, to continue trading. Had the Panel applied the regulatory framework with a literal and orthodox interpretation, the situation for Rangers would have been far worse. Still, the application to challenge the SFA Panel's decision, may end up being 'utterly irretrievable' for Scottish football as a whole...

 

Dr. Gregory Ioannidis 26 May 2012

 

PS For the sake of clarity, I would like to state that I am not suggesting in this article that the Application submitted by Rangers will be successful. I am simply analysing the possible ramifications in the event such application is successful.*

 

http://lawtop20.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/civil-action-recipe-for-disaster.html?m=1

[GovanAllan 0]

So in a nutshell they didn't have the baws to really throw the book at us and came up with the embargo on the fly.

 

Would be nice to know who actually sat in on the meeting that decided on the embargo, because I don't believe for a minute it was just the 3 who sat on the panel who came up with that idea.

Edited May 27, 2012 by GovanAllan

[caseyjones 0]

So in a nutshell they didn't have the baws to really throw the book at us and came up with the embargo on the fly.

 

Would be nice to know who actually sat in on the meeting that decided on the embargo, because I don't believe for a minute it was just the 3 who sat on the panel who came up with that idea.

 

Are you now complaining that the sanctions weren't as harsh as they should have been?

[Guest millersrightboot]

the SFA should look over the border and see how the English FA try and help clubs in trouble not the draconian measures like SFA

but what else should we expect when the tims are pulling SFAs strings