The use of civil courts in football

[Thinker 875]

Not likely to be either IMO.

 

FIFA wanted a quick resolution so will be happy enough the court have referred the final decision back to the SFA. Any FIFA investigation would not only be into RFC but the SFA for not having the CAS option available. No-one will want that so SFA won't appeal it and they'll offer RFC a year's suspension from Scottish Cup.

 

Done.

 

If this was to be dealt with sensibly and reasonably, then it certainly should go the way you suggest.

But are the SFA a sensible, reasonable organization?

[calscot 0]

Not likely to be either IMO.

 

FIFA wanted a quick resolution so will be happy enough the court have referred the final decision back to the SFA. Any FIFA investigation would not only be into RFC but the SFA for not having the CAS option available. No-one will want that so SFA won't appeal it and they'll offer RFC a year's suspension from Scottish Cup.

 

Done.

 

That's what I envisage too. Maybe with some wishful thinking involved...

[calscot 0]

If this was to be dealt with sensibly and reasonably, then it certainly should go the way you suggest.

But are the SFA a sensible, reasonable organization?

 

I don't think so: instead of "taking their punishment for wrongdoing", apologising and making good: their first thoughts will be revenge...

 

Actually, where is their apology?

[bigy 0]

Does William Hills sponsorship and/or Sky's coverage of the Scottish Cup not depend on our involvement? If we're not in TV viewing figures will be way down, so Sky's own sponsorship by Carling and advertising break revenue will be impacted, so can't see them being happy.

 

It's probably the reason they didn't consider this previously.

[craig 5,199]

Does William Hills sponsorship and/or Sky's coverage of the Scottish Cup not depend on our involvement? If we're not in TV viewing figures will be way down, so Sky's own sponsorship by Carling and advertising break revenue will be impacted, so can't see them being happy.

 

It's probably the reason they didn't consider this previously.

 

Exactly, they wanted to find a punishment which only negatively impacted on Rangers, not themselves. And they fucked it up.

 

Time for the SFA to bite the bitter pill.

[Guest Mac]

What we took the SFA to court over wasn't the fact that we were found guilty, we have accepted the charges put to us. What we took the SFA to court over was the punishment handed down to us, as they didn't have the authority to stop us signing players. IMO this makes the SFA look really bad and i'd be surprised if FIFA / UEFA sided with a bunch of fuds who don't know their own rules.

[bluebear54 0]

I think that almost all of today's media coverage is either ill thought out spin (whether SFA or otherwise) or a collective journalistic incompetence in totally misunderstanding the implications of the ruling.

 

A harsher view would be that is an ever more grotesquely driven anti-Rangers agenda. It appears to me that the SFA – and the media - have treated the Rangers almost as if they were sex offenders, and I haven't seen any evidence to contradict what I feel.

 

May I mention in despatches that Traynor bucked the trend, so good on him.

 

This FIFA/UEFA nonsense is way off the mark. The comparison with the Sion case(coincidental why Sion comes up by the way) is also way off the mark. The ruling yesterday was about the legality of the sanctions imposed. The grounds for those sanctions were not opposed.

 

Today, the waters have been muddied, and it’s once again all about Rangers. Yesterday's ruling was not about Rangers - it was about the SFA, and let's not forget that.

 

The situation that Rangers find themselves in is one matter, but we need to return to the crucial issue. The ruling yesterday was against the SFA. Regarding that ruling, Rangers are irrelevant. In a universal context, it could have been any club in Scotland. The fact is that the procedures and the application of the rules of the SFA have been called to account by the Court of Session, and they have found to be not supportable.

 

Personally,I feel that the SFA is a shambles. It's patently obvious that it isn't fit for purpose, and a priority should be assessing what Scottish football replaces it with. Yesterday's court ruling was a damning determination of their incompetency.

 

As a challenge, perhaps the SFA would like to highlight where they have benefited the Scottish game in the past few years. Even simpler than that, just tell us -without the bullshit - what they got right, as opposed to what they got totally wrong.

 

Scotland’s game is in this place today because of the SFA. They have had the remit to alleviate many problems - to advance our national game, to sort out the referee crisis or to put in place a balanced approach to disciplinary action – amongst other matters. However, they have arguably made things worse, and arguably failed to address the key issues.

 

I have never known such a period of vitriolic animosity amongst fans. The national team is deep-diving through the rankings, and I feel that we have many years ahead to repair the damage done.

 

Perhaps Regan would like to highlight all of this on his CV?

 

Any other football association in the world would have made efforts to support its referees, ensure a balanced approach to help a member club in crisis, and work out a strategy to develop and advance the game – especially at a youth level.

 

Yesterday’s ruling is not a further call to castigate Rangers. It was a call to open the debate on the inadequacy of the people who run our game and to put in motion a debate that will sort Scottish football out. Will it happen? I’m not holding my breath.

 

Meanwhile the Scottish media will spin the issue and collectively miss the point for the sake of a few paper sales or ratings.

 

Perhaps I’m being too kind, and I should just wait for the next anti-Rangers diatribe.

Edited May 30, 2012 by bluebear54