Ibrox club face being booted out of the game or the cup as SFA accept court ruling

[bigy 0]

Wasn't it the original panel who said that they considered termination too harsh?

 

Glennie sent it back to the Appellate Panel and listed the sanctions open to them.

 

Either way, given the original panel have ruled it too harsh, the appeal panel can't increase it otherwise they'd still be over that barrel.

 

I actually expect a suspended sentence. They'll do something to make them look tough, but suspend it for 12 months pending it doesn't happen again.

[caseyjones 0]

Either way, given the original panel have ruled it too harsh, the appeal panel can't increase it otherwise they'd still be over that barrel.

 

I actually expect a suspended sentence. They'll do something to make them look tough, but suspend it for 12 months pending it doesn't happen again.

 

Is it right that the appeal panel can't give out a harsher punishment?

[GovanAllan 0]

Despite asking many times I've never seen any evidence of the appeal panel mentioning termination. Can you point me in thr right direction?

 

Can't CJ did the original panel not say they felt the cup ban or expulsion from the league (not sure if that meant just withdrawal of membership) we're too harsh in this case, when questioned why they choose the embargo.

[calscot 0]

I still don't see the need to punish us at all - it just seems like the SFA trying to look like it has some muscles and of course is under pressure from Lawell et al.

 

The cry is "sporting integrity", but if that is the case what sporting advantage did Rangers gain by not paying taxes?

 

Let's see:

Administration (which meant renegotiating players' contracts leading to the worst run of results in years as well as a shock early cup exit), a ten point deduction (which ended our plausible title challenge), a ban from Europe and the likelihood of losing our best players for bargain fees.

 

Yeah, all those sporting advantages need to be readdressed, right?

[GovanAllan 0]

Is it right that the appeal panel can't give out a harsher punishment?

 

No it's not CJ but when the panel have said the two harsher penalties are too harsh they've kind off backed themselves into a corner.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Is it right that the appeal panel can't give out a harsher punishment?

 

they can raise or lower the punishment.

[bigy 0]

Is it right that the appeal panel can't give out a harsher punishment?

 

I don't know, but I think it would be a very strange decision and stink of vindictiveness. I think the problem they have is we already have the maximum fine, someone at the SFA judicial or appeal panel has already said suspension is too harsh, and the only punishment left is being chucked out the Scottish Cup. But, if they chuck us out the cup then Sky won't be happy as their viewing figures and advertising figures will take a big hit, so they'll look to renegotiate which will then impact on all clubs. William Hill could also see it as undermining their sponsorship due to the reduction in interest.

 

Given that, the only option I can see is to pretend to be tough by kicking us out the cup or suspending us, but to suspend the sentence so in effect there's no punishment.

[caseyjones 0]

Can't CJ did the original panel not say they felt the cup ban or expulsion from the league (not sure if that meant just withdrawal of membership) we're too harsh in this case, when questioned why they choose the embargo.

 

Cup ban considered not enough, termination considered too harsh.

[caseyjones 0]

I still don't see the need to punish us at all - it just seems like the SFA trying to look like it has some muscles and of course is under pressure from Lawell et al.

 

The cry is "sporting integrity", but if that is the case what sporting advantage did Rangers gain by not paying taxes?

 

Let's see:

Administration (which meant renegotiating players' contracts leading to the worst run of results in years as well as a shock early cup exit), a ten point deduction (which ended our plausible title challenge), a ban from Europe and the likelihood of losing our best players for bargain fees.

 

Yeah, all those sporting advantages need to be readdressed, right?

 

Playrrs could have been sold in the summer windoe to balance the books.

[caseyjones 0]

they can raise or lower the punishment.

 

That's what I thought. Daft having an appeal if they can't alter the original decision.