Danny 0 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 In short terms my understanding is the judge said the transfer embargo was unlawful, and has passed it back to the SFA who aren't happy. The notion is now that they have to punish us in an alternative manner or drop the whole thing. They are not going to kick us out of the SPL nor are they going to suspend us. It would kill the Sky/ESPN deal if they did. Banning us from the SC is probably the best option and it's fine by me. Given I'd have liked us to boycott it anyway. Because more fines would just be ridiculous given we have no money. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 In short terms my understanding is the judge said the transfer embargo was unlawful, and has passed it back to the SFA who aren't happy. The notion is now that they have to punish us in an alternative manner or drop the whole thing. They are not going to kick us out of the SPL nor are they going to suspend us. It would kill the Sky/ESPN deal if they did. Banning us from the SC is probably the best option and it's fine by me. Given I'd have liked us to boycott it anyway. Because more fines would just be ridiculous given we have no money. SFA couldn't kick us out of the SPL anyway. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 In short terms my understanding is the judge said the transfer embargo was unlawful, and has passed it back to the SFA who aren't happy. The notion is now that they have to punish us in an alternative manner or drop the whole thing. They are not going to kick us out of the SPL nor are they going to suspend us. It would kill the Sky/ESPN deal if they did. Banning us from the SC is probably the best option and it's fine by me. Given I'd have liked us to boycott it anyway. Because more fines would just be ridiculous given we have no money. The thing is, I don't see a ban from the SC as being likely. William Hill's CEO has resigned from the SFA if I recall. I presume the sponsorship is still in place. Are they entitled to renegotiate if RFC aren't involved? What about other sponsors - TV rights? Would the Scottish Government be prepared to support a competition that is not fully inclusive? The SFA may very well decide to suspend us from now until the start of the season. Not as devastating as a transfer ban, mind you, and we could live with that. However, not sure if they can stop us playing friendies abroad, and I'm convinced they can't stop us playing training games at Auchenhowie. I don't think they can fine us more, unless they introduce a new breach of rules. They fined us the maximum. And if they raise a new breach of rules, it could be seen as pettiness, and being out to get us. Let's just see what they can come up with that exists within their rules. Because if it's not in their rules, they know where it will end up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The huge fine should be more than enough, especially against a club who are skint. Who did they think we were going to sign this summer? Lio Messi ffs! We dont have money to sign the players our club and fans deserve. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juancornetto 1 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Much as I hate to mention the mhanky hordes, can you just imagine what would be happening now if the SFA had made an unlawful ruling and sanction against them? Self immolation on the steps of Hampden would be a daily occurrence. Edited May 29, 2012 by Juancornetto 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,247 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 One of the repliers to the stv article wrapped it up "nicely": Take note & understand (and if you want I will try to explain it in as simple terms for you as I can) The SFA tribunal had several punishments available to them, suspension of player registrations was NOT one of these punishments - the SFA panel decided to use a punishment which was not available to them. Their appeals panel upheld the original punishment despite knowing that no such punishment was available to them, by their own rules they should have accepted the appeal & discarded the suspension. The problem here is that Rangers proved that the suspension in player registrations was unlawful, now I appreciate for the intellectuals amongst you that Rangers are currently under investigation for improper use of tax loopholes, but ultimately the governing body broke the law in imposing the signing ban. FIFA are telling the SFA to "act" against Rangers for challenging not one but TWO illegal acts against them, so FIFA genuinely believe that they are above the law and that the SFA should consider themselves thus too? (Mind you, the SFA have been a law unto themselves for many years) What FIFA will now be expecting the SFA to do is to impose a sanction from within the framework available to them - suspension from the SFA (harmful to them & WILL cost them sponsors), expulsion from the Scottish Cup (which I'd advocate Rangers not participating in anyway) or termination from the SFA (again, harmful to them & Scottish football). bluenoseam 29/05/2012 Report this place 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.