Guest Dutchy Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It's a funny, strange idea, but I thought the SFA were there to help teams that get themselves into trouble. Maybe the head and the board need to be investigated more. Enough is enough! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
no12 0 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I have mixed feelings about this. There is a time to fight and that is when you are in the right. Until we see the evidence we cannot say whether this is unfair or not. What has really upset me is the illegal transfer ban. I honestly believe that is what we should be objecting to in the first instance. The legality or otherwise has, I feel, always been a bit of a red herring: If you want to be part of an organisation you have to abide by the rules of the organisation - if you feel you have been unfairly treated by that organisation then you need to complain firstly to the head committee of the organisation and then, if that gets you nowhere, to any superior group that the organisation is part of. Where the rules stand against the laws of the land is, I believe, completely irrelevant. The bottom line is that nobody is forcing you to be part of that organisation - but if you do want to be then you have to accept their judgement whether you like it or not. The law has nothing to do with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,118 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The legality or otherwise has, I feel, always been a bit of a red herring:If you want to be part of an organisation you have to abide by the rules of the organisation - if you feel you have been unfairly treated by that organisation then you need to complain firstly to the head committee of the organisation and then, if that gets you nowhere, to any superior group that the organisation is part of. Where the rules stand against the laws of the land is, I believe, completely irrelevant. The bottom line is that nobody is forcing you to be part of that organisation - but if you do want to be then you have to accept their judgement whether you like it or not. The law has nothing to do with it. I understand what you mean but the football authorities are acting out with the law of the land. Bosman proved that they can't do that. Because something is in their rules does not make it acceptable. UEFA have removed transfer embargo as a legitimate sanction because it conflicts with European employment laws, yet our own association is using it. I would think that MP's etc would have plenty to say if staff lost their jobs over something that had been declared outwith their range of sanctions in a court of law. It is high time someone challenged the football authorities at the level of the European parliament. I know they have changed the sanction to apply to a condition of membership. To me that is bloody minded vindictiveness. What is so frustrating is that no-one is telling them to wise up. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 (edited) I am against the club asking for the dual contracts investigation to be dropped. If we are in the clear, what's to lose? But if, as seems pretty obvious from our move, we were operating outside the rules, it's hard to argue that some form of punishment (yes, more!) is in order. Sorry but this is one of the most naive things I have seen in a while. The answer is NOT going to be as clear cut as you suggest. It is not a case of us either being clearly guilty or clearly innocent. There will be a massive grey area and it is already proven that we will not get a fair hearing, given the appellate organisation has already been discussing our punishments, and we have seen the way that they are blackmailing us to accept a previous illegal punishment. They came up with a punishment that no other club that has gone into administration has faced. It doesn't matter if we were operating within the rules. They are working towards finding us guilty anyway and this is a way of preventing it. Edited July 23, 2012 by Bluedell 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Going to plenty of grey areas and I doubt, given what has gone before, that we have any chance of an 'innocent' verdict. But SFA/SPL corruption does not make us innocent by default. If we broke the rules it is incumbent upon us to 'face the music'. If we feel persecuted legal recourse must be the option, not striking deals which reek of guilt. I still hope we can prove innocence...the quotes from Murray over this are fairly unambiguous and while his word is more or less worthless I can't help but hope he's telling the truth for once. Far from being naive, not running away from mistakes is part of the morality I was brought up with and I've no reason to find fault in it as yet. I#ll take it over SDM or SPL morality any day. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I still hope we can prove innocence...the quotes from Murray over this are fairly unambiguous and while his word is more or less worthless I can't help but hope he's telling the truth for once. Sorry but that's still more naivity. Even if Murray is truthful they will still probably find us guilty as the payments were made. They are not looking for the existence of a bit of paper. They are not looking to see if the rules were broken. Legal recourse? They are trying to take that away from us well. This is got nothing to do with morality. We are not "facing the music". There is no chance of us receiving a fair hearing and there is no chance of us getting a fair punishment. We are trying to escape from a kangaroo court. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy steel 0 Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 It is not facing their music, it is facing our own music. Granted that means being no doubt overly chastised by SPL lunatics but the fundamental point is about not running away from (alleged) wrong doing. However, I answered your point in my last answer so I'll leave it at that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 That is in no way a valid parallel. If you grew your hedge so high that it broke local bylaws then you would have no say in how much of it had to come off - that's a wee bit closer to the situation. I disagree. It's more like if you grow a certain species of hedge, it's not considered a proper hedge and so the rules are that you can grow it as high as you like. You do this for years in full view, without any complaint. Then your council changes the rules on this exception and wants to backdate it ten years. You're neighbours then decide they want to punish you in multiple ways and trash your garden in a way that will take years to restore. Then they decide beforehand that you are guilty of cheating in previous garden competitions that you won and decide to convene their own committee to find you guilty in a kangaroo court and then punish you by stripping you of your prizes and restricting how much you can do to rebuild your garden to only planting seeds and nothing more, while planning to punish you more in future as well as taking all the money for any sales of fruit and veg from your allotment... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
no12 0 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I disagree. It's more like if you grow a certain species of hedge, it's not considered a proper hedge and so the rules are that you can grow it as high as you like. You do this for years in full view, without any complaint. Then your council changes the rules on this exception and wants to backdate it ten years. You're neighbours then decide they want to punish you in multiple ways and trash your garden in a way that will take years to restore. Then they decide beforehand that you are guilty of cheating in previous garden competitions that you won and decide to convene their own committee to find you guilty in a kangaroo court and then punish you by stripping you of your prizes and restricting how much you can do to rebuild your garden to only planting seeds and nothing more, while planning to punish you more in future as well as taking all the money for any sales of fruit and veg from your allotment... Aye, tae he'll wi' the lot o' them, I'll build a wall! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I would welcome a proper investigation into the dual contract issue providing there is an agreed appeal process involving the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Justice not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done. There's so much at stake with these decisions that it's very difficult to ensure impartiality from anyone within Scottish football. The only reason the SFA could object to an appeal to the CAS is if they intend to pass a judgement which they believe would not stand up to independent assessment. As for media rights - that should be a discussion between the SFL and the SPL. Maybe the SFL will agree to waive the £2 million payment from the SPL since they're in line for a cash boost due to our presence. It's up to them though - there's no reason why the SPL should be entitled to TV money from an SFL club. The matter of our SFA membership is independent of any disciplinary investigations. For the SFA to abuse their power in this decision to demand acceptance of sanctions is corrupt. If they demand media rights then that is extortion. It's blatantly corrupt. 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.