Herald - Lord Glennie - Reasons for judgement published

[der Berliner 3,267]

Link to full story to come. You'd hope that hacks would read this first before slamming Rangers left, right and centre. It should be the SFA's turn ...

 

Herald Sport has obtained a copy of Lord Glennie's 10-page findings after Rangers succeeded in a judicial review of the SFA's decision to hit them with a 12-month signing ban. The case will now be considered again by the SFA's own Appellate Tribunal under Lord Carloway, at a date yet to be set.

 

Rangers were punished by the SFA for bringing the game into disrepute for, among other things, non-payment of PAYE and National Insurance contributions. They contested the punishment, rather than the verdict, and took the SFA to court. That action could yet have repercussions for the club and the governing body from the world ruling body, FIFA, but Lord Glennie ruled that their case was sound.

 

The SFA's general disciplinary rules lay out "sanctions available to the tribunal" and "scale of sanctions". On charges of bringing the game into disrepute, the only stated sanctions are a fine, suspension, expulsion from participation in the game, ejection from the Scottish Cup and termination of membership.

 

Lord Glennie said the decision he had to make was on whether the imposition of a 12-month transfer ban was ultra vires, in other words whether the SFA's disciplinary tribunal had the power to impose any additional sanction.

 

He found flaws in the SFA's protocol and said there was no point specifying certain punishments for offences if tribunal panels had the power to impose any penalty they wanted to, up to the specified maximum.

 

Lord Glennie said the SFA's QC at the Court of Session hearings, Aidan O'Neill, had effectively said "so what if it does not mention that", in relation to a transfer ban.

 

The findings said: "It is to be noted that nowhere in the list of available sanctions is there any reference to a ban for any period on registering new players.

 

"Mr O'Neill, on behalf of the SFA says, in effect: 'so what if it does not mention that. A fine would be ridiculously low for the conduct here complained of. Suspension or expulsion, or termination of membership, would be too harsh. There must be room, reading the rule sensibly, for something in between which is proportional and effective'. The Appellate Tribunal took a somewhat similar view.

 

"Their interpretation therefore appears to be this: that the tribunal can award anything which is a lesser penalty than the maximum suspension or termination of membership. I regret that I cannot accept that view. If that was the true view there would, in my opinion, be no point in identifying specific sanctions in the columns headed 'sanctions available to the tribunal'.

 

"It seems to me to be clear that the protocol is laying down a specific range of sanctions which the tribunal may impose, depending on upon the particular offence with which the club or other member of the SFA is charged. The tribunal cannot impose sanctions not given to it in Annex A.

 

"It follows that the disciplinary tribunal and the appellate tribunal were, in my view, wrong to hold that they had power to impose the additional sanction in this case. In imposing and affirming that sanction they acted ultra vires.

 

"The fact that I find the imposition of the additional sanctions to be ultra vires does not necessarily mean that the petitioners will escape to a lighter and ineffective punishment. That is entirely a matter for the appeal tribunal and not for this case."

 

Rangers, who were represented at the Court of Session by Richard Keen QC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, did not contest the merits of the case itself or the appropriateness of any sanction which is specified in the SFA's articles of association. Nor did the club dispute a £100,000 fine, nor the fact it had brought the game into disrepute.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

given the sfas qc has already stated that certain punishments were to harsh if they impose those the court case surrounding that should be short but sweet.

[trueblue 64 53]

given the sfas qc has already stated that certain punishments were to harsh if they impose those the court case surrounding that should be short but sweet.

 

The only available option appears to be a Scottish cup ban which will harm the sfa more than us, bring it on.

[alexscottislegend 2,086]

Did I read somewhere that a Scottish Cup ban could imperil the CVA? If so how come?

[andy steel 0]

That would be good (a Cup ban I mean), but I can't see anything in the book (not that I've read it, mind you...) which prevents a new appeal panel discounting the verdict of the original one; indeed, they pretty much have to start afresh. Yes, it would look chronically hypocritical to say initially that (say) expulsion would be too harsh then turn around an expel us, but we are dealing with a body (Scottish football) which is utterly riddled with hypocrisy from top to bottom.

 

The only question is whether they are riddled with stupidity as well. Given the number of head honchos who view the law as 'dangerous', I fear I'm not confident on that one, either.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Did I read somewhere that a Scottish Cup ban could imperil the CVA? If so how come?

 

it can if green wants it to.

 

one of the clauses is that we must be in all competitions or green can pull out.

 

I would be suspicious if he did because of something so small.

[craig 5,199]

That would be good (a Cup ban I mean), but I can't see anything in the book (not that I've read it, mind you...) which prevents a new appeal panel discounting the verdict of the original one; indeed, they pretty much have to start afresh. Yes, it would look chronically hypocritical to say initially that (say) expulsion would be too harsh then turn around an expel us, but we are dealing with a body (Scottish football) which is utterly riddled with hypocrisy from top to bottom.

 

The only question is whether they are riddled with stupidity as well. Given the number of head honchos who view the law as 'dangerous', I fear I'm not confident on that one, either.

 

Regan tweeted that the appeal panel is likely to be the same as the original panel. Obviously that doesn't prevent them from handing down a harsher suspension but they will then look vindictive.

 

I am not so sure they need to start afresh given it is the same panel, but we should know by now that nothing is logical when it comes to the SFA.

[andy steel 0]

It won't be vindictive, it will be our fault for using the law in order to reverse an illegal decision.

 

It's a fucked up universe for Bears atm, that's the truth. I know I'm a poncy literary wank, but there's a book called 'Erewhon' which depicts a mad society in which the ill are criminalised, while criminals are viewed with sympathy and given treatment. Might be by Samuel Butler, dunno. That's what it feels like just now to me.

 

Heard a good one today - I have the radio in the khazi so that I can, appropriately enough, listen to BBC Scotland when firing out the dreck. This afternoon, the ginger cretin from the north, Jim Spence, gave it as his considered opinion that Rangers had lost all sympathy by their legal actions. Indeed, he's right! We should have ridden that wave of goodwill and help that flooded in when we got in trouble, shouldn't we?

 

The same station then brazenly berated UEFA / FIFA for not doing enough to battle racism, bigotry etc, but what can you expect from the likes of Platini etc. So, on one hand, they must hammer Rangers for using the law; on the other, they are ineffectual and corrupt.

 

I wonder if they know how ridiculous they sound?

[Zappa 0]

given the sfas qc has already stated that certain punishments were to harsh if they impose those the court case surrounding that should be short but sweet.

 

Aidan O'Neill QC changed his tune quickly enough after the result of the Court of Session hearing. As you say, he stated during proceedings that certain available punishments were too harsh, then afterwards apparently went on to recommend that the SFA must use the punishments which are too harsh. To think that so many people told me it didn't matter that the SFA had employed Aidan O'Neill QC to fight their case, then as soon as we get a good result, he's recommending that the SFA punish us with a harsher penalty than the signing ban.

[craig 5,199]

Aidan O'Neill QC changed his tune quickly enough after the result of the Court of Session hearing. As you say, he stated during proceedings that certain available punishments were too harsh, then afterwards apparently went on to recommend that the SFA must use the punishments which are too harsh. To think that so many people told me it didn't matter that the SFA had employed Aidan O'Neill QC to fight their case, then as soon as we get a good result, he's recommending that the SFA punish us with a harsher penalty than the signing ban.

 

Sorry Zappa but the bit in bold is nonsense. Two things :

 

1. Go and read what O' Neill says. He doesnt "recommend" anything at all - he simply says that the SFA will need to now consider the more harsh punishments. Which they will, along with no further punishment at all.

 

2. O' Neill is not part of the decision-making process with regards to what the punishment will be. Given that Lord Glennie clearly stated that the SFA must punish what is within their guidelines i.e. specified punishments then even the inept SFA will be able to see what is available to them without the oversight of their QC. The appeal tribunal will not include O'Neill.

 

To suggest that O' Neill is now effectively orchestrating what punishment will be handed down to is, IMO, wholly inaccurate.