bluebear54 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) Firstly, I don't think a lesser sanction would be acceptable by those who are actively trying to destroy us. Secondly, a registration ban, whether 6 or 12 months, is not within the SFA's powers. Fact. Edited June 3, 2012 by bluebear54 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 (edited) Methinks someone pointed out that the Glennie "ruling" works both ways. They cannot impose that sanction, and we - under SFA rules - cannot accept it ... or a lesser version. That said, should we compromise here, the SFA would essentially have a precedence (to hit us and any other offending club with) and our acceptance that they can - essentially - whip up any new sanction they like without fear of repercussion. Hence, we shouldn't go down that trail. Essentially, it is similar to a case where someone committed a crime which seems to be out of sync with the current law. Yet, no matter what, that someone has to be charged with the current law, while the high court (or anyone responsible for that) whips up a newer, up to date law to deal with future instances of that crime. What the SPL/SFA did is trying to whip up new laws without having them covered and apparently thought through (no wonder if you see the brains they utilize). Obviously, that leaves us and them in some sort of danger. For they are indeed left with sanctions that they as well as we see unwarranted (after all, it was not the club and the fans who brought the game into disrepute) , as well as sanctions that would - if we are honest - have no great impact on the club. Obviously, thanks to the media and the hysterical reporting, it looks like the rest of Scottish football bays for our blood - no matter what, reasonable or not. Still, much like the crime case above, the rules are set out and the SFA has to commit itself. If they indeed go for broke here, I wouldn't mind if Rangers take them to court for real and let Scottish football suffer here. For IMHO, it is still like people trying to punish the Costa Concordia itself and its passengers, not the captain and the helmsman. Edited June 3, 2012 by der Berliner 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Firstly, I don't think a lesser sanction would be acceptable by those who are actively trying to destroy us. Secondly, a registration ban, whether 6 or 12 months, is not within the SFA's powers. Fact. Even though a registration ban of 6 or 12 months is not within the SFA's powers they CAN still issue one - the only way that it would not be upheld is if the club hit with the ban (us) were to challenge it (again) through the courts. This looks like Green and RFC are looking at a way of ensuring a more harsh punishment is not meted out to us - so we would let the SFA impose a 6 month transfer ban and not challenge it, in lieu of being given a more stiff sentence, such as suspension. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 could issuing us with a second embargo lead to criminal charges? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 could issuing us with a second embargo lead to criminal charges? Because of? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CumbernauldGers 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 He should keep his nose out of the club's business until such time that his consortium actually own the club. This guy Green is giving me the heebie jeebies. So your not happy that somebody that's group will prob own Rangers very soon is standing up for the club and putting the SFA in there place? I take it you prefered the days of DM just accepting anything thrown at the club, what a very strange attitude to have as a Rangers fan. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 So your not happy that somebody that's group will prob own Rangers very soon is standing up for the club and putting the SFA in there place? He doesn't have any right to deal with the SFA on behalf of our club until he actually owns it. I take it you prefered the days of DM just accepting anything thrown at the club, what a very strange attitude to have as a Rangers fan. My point is very clear: Charles Green should keep his nose out of the club's current business dealing with the SFA, SPL or anyone else until such time that his consortium actually legally become the club's new owner/s. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,263 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Wanted to comment earlier, but ... Record Sport understands ... Aha! Green is believed to ... ... but we don't know for certain. FIFA has ordered the SFA to haul Rangers into line or face the prospect of being banned from the World Cup qualifiers and seeing their club sides kicked out of Europe. That means the SFA are seriously considering expelling or suspending Rangers’ membership – a move that would create chaos within the Scottish game. FIFA has ordered? Says who? Green met with Gers boss Ally McCoist at Ibrox yesterday and it is believed ... ... but we don't know for certain either. It is believed that this is a non-story, but we don't know for certain just yet. We understand though, that posting garbage ain't that terrible since half of the readership will buy it still and spend days debating over it with the non-believers. By that time, it is thought that we have another story at the ready which we believe will target the non-believing faction amongst the readers more successfully. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Because of? Contempt of court most probably. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 As far as I'm concerned Duff & Phelps have been shown to be economical with the truth By Mark Daly? and I highly doubt the veracity of their "legally binding contract" patter regarding the Green consortium's bid to take over. Given that I feel that way, I also feel that Green should not be present at any official club business meetings until such time that his consortium legally own the club. Zappa, all contracts are legally binding, that's the point of them. If Charles Green has entered into a contract, then YES! It really is legally binding. 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.