ian1964 10,430 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 CHARLES GREEN, who is leading a consortium to purchase Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today. He said: "On behalf of the consortium purchasing the Rangers Football Club, it is my firm view that it is vitally important for the current issue of the SFA player embargo to be resolved and neither I nor my investors wish to see an outcome that would be to the detriment of Scottish Football. "Throughout this process, the Club, the Administrators and most importantly the supporters have taken the view that any sanction against Rangers - due entirely to the misdeeds of individuals no longer at the Club - should be proportionate. "We and the Administrators did not want to take the matter to a civil court at all. "Unfortunately, the route to apply to the Court of Arbitration in Sport was not open to the Club because the SFA's own articles fail to include a specific provision permitting appeals to CAS and the Judicial Panel Protocol contains a rule which prohibits any form of appeal to CAS or any other body. "Our position has been endorsed by Lord Glennie in the Court of Session. The Club was prohibited from appealing to CAS by the SFA's own rules. "The Judicial Review was not an appeal rather it was the Club exercising its right under Scots Law to have the court review whether or not the imposition of the transfer embargo was within the power of the tribunals of the Judicial Panel. "All of the appeal points put to the appellate tribunal relating to the harsh and excessive nature of the embargo were dropped as it would not have been appropriate to have taken those to the Court of Session" "Rangers is wholly committed member of the SFA and SPL and fully respects their structures. "Lord Glennie has referred the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal which heard the Club's appeal and we note a hearing is due to take place in due course. "Either party has 21 days to consider an appeal. It is the Club's view that the matter should in fact have been referred back to the original tribunal which imposed the transfer ban because the appellate tribunal in its written judgement made clear the view they held on the appropriate alternative sanction to be imposed in the event that the transfer ban was successfully challenged. "We are fully aware that one of the sanctions available to the Appellate Tribunal should the matter be referred back there is the suspension or termination of Rangers Football Club membership of the SFA. "That in our view would be a disaster for Scottish football and a major setback to our plans to take Rangers forward after a particularly difficult period in its history. "Equally, the alternative sanction of expulsion from the Scottish Cup is itself a very serious punishment which would also have a severe impact on Scottish football as well as on our Club. "We will be considering with our legal team the best way forward after the public holiday." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2796603 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Equally, the alternative sanction of expulsion from the Scottish Cup is itself a very serious punishment which would also have a severe impact on Scottish football as well as on our Club. It's not your club yet!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rangers Football Club 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 PROSPECTIVE chief exec wishes to see transfer embargo issue resolved More... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 It's not your club yet!! A decent statement and that's the only thing you pick out of it? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 A decent statement and that's the only thing you pick out of it? What did he say that hasn't been said before? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,430 Posted June 3, 2012 Author Share Posted June 3, 2012 What did he say that hasn't been said before? Aye but a lot of our detractors seem to have deliberately ignored the fact: "Unfortunately, the route to apply to the Court of Arbitration in Sport was not open to the Club because the SFA's own articles fail to include a specific provision permitting appeals to CAS and the Judicial Panel Protocol contains a rule which prohibits any form of appeal to CAS or any other body.'' 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 A decent statement and that's the only thing you pick out of it? Yes, it is. One day he's acting like his consortium already own Rangers then the next day he's saying things which clearly show that they don't own the club yet. His consortium don't own the club yet and acting like they do is not only wrong, but very misleading for the fans. I want the truth out of this guy and his consortium and the same from D&P. A half arsed, twisted and misleading version of the truth is unacceptable to me. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 Aye but a lot of our detractors seem to have deliberately ignored the fact:"Unfortunately, the route to apply to the Court of Arbitration in Sport was not open to the Club because the SFA's own articles fail to include a specific provision permitting appeals to CAS and the Judicial Panel Protocol contains a rule which prohibits any form of appeal to CAS or any other body.'' Spot on Ian....I found that bit very interesting indeed. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 One day he's acting like his consortium already own Rangers then the next day he's saying things which clearly show that they don't own the club yet. His consortium may not own the club, but something tells me that from 1st June, he is now involved in the day-to-day running of the club. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted June 3, 2012 Share Posted June 3, 2012 His consortium may not own the club, but something tells me that from 1st June, he is now involved in the day-to-day running of the club. They shouldn't be involved in any day-to-day running of the club until they legally own it though and that's my point Darthter. 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.