pete 2,499 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 What fool thinks the SFA were wanting us to drop our right of appeal to them? You and GS stated we have given up our right of appeal and stated our appeal was to the SFA. I stated that the sanction was for an appeal to the court and GS said we only assumed that. Maybe it is just that you guy's contradict yourselves so often to paint Green black. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 the appeal is to the sfa. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 the appeal is to the sfa. So the SFA wanted us to give up our right to appeal to the SFA? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 So the SFA wanted us to give up our right to appeal to the SFA? do we know they wanted us to give up any right of appeal. if they did maybe it was to courts but more likely the cas. perhaps everything has a recourse to the courts I'm not sure. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 do we know they wanted us to give up any right of appeal. if they did maybe it was to courts but more likely the cas. perhaps everything has a recourse to the courts I'm not sure. The SFA allowed no option to appeal to the CAS that is why we went to court the last time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 (edited) So the SFA wanted us to give up our right to appeal to the SFA? My take on it was that one of the conditions they conjured up out of thin air for our transfer of SFA membership is that they wanted us to sign an agreement not to appeal SFA decisions via the courts again like we did with the transfer embargo when the RFFF paid for a QC to take the SFA to the Court of Session. If I'm wrong, then fair enough, but I see that as a completely separate condition regarding our right to appeal as to what's being discussed regarding the SPL's dual contract investigation. If the SPL find us guilty of breaking their rules they can try to strip us of titles and if they do that, then our route for appeal will be via the SFA in the form of one of their new appellate tribunals. Back in October 2010 Dundee went into administration whilst playing in the SFL first division. They'd previously been in administration in 2003/04, but that was while they were in the SPL. In November of 2010 the SFL ruled that Dundee would be deducted 25 points, an unprecedented sanction for a Scottish club and Dundee were forced to appeal via the SFA. We'll have to do likewise if the SPL hammer us for the cooked-up dual contracts crap. We'll have to appeal via the SFA except that in our case we won't actually be appealing via the SFA at all, we'll be appealing via one of their new so-called impartial independent appellate tribunals. Now here's the most important thing (IMO).... We haven't heard anything about it yet, but has Green agreed to the SFA's condition of us not challenging them in a real Court again? This is very important because should the SPL hammer us and our SFA appeal fail at an appellate tribunal we'd previously have been within our rights to challenge the decision of the appellate tribunal, but if this right has been signed away then an SFA kangaroo court can uphold any decision reached by the SPL (and they can essentially make their decision before there's even a hearing as they've done with us previously) and we wouldn't be able to challenge it. Not trying to scaremonger btw and please correct me someone if I'm wrong about any of that! Edited July 28, 2012 by Zappa 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,310 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I still think people who can should look into the SFA and SPL handling of the affair, an affair which borders to coercion. What if, e.g. HMRC and/or Ticketus comes after us now, since we pay some creditors, but others not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You and GS stated we have given up our right of appeal and stated our appeal was to the SFA. I stated that the sanction was for an appeal to the court and GS said we only assumed that. Maybe it is just that you guy's contradict yourselves so often to paint Green black. I don't for one second think it was the right of appeal to the SFA that was at stake that's as forgone a conclusion as you'll ever likely to get. It's our inalienable right to legal redress that I'm concerned about. Sorry but must have missed the rule that states licking Greens arse is mandatory. I'm highly sceptical of Green and his "investors" desire and ability to properly fund us in the long run, their Plan A and Plan B blew up in their faces and we're now on at least Plan C. Given that Green has decided to ignore the ruling of Lord Glennie that the SFA acted ultra vires in handing out the player registration ban and despite Lord Glennie awarding us the expenses of the litigation Green has now decided to accept the ban and agreed to pay the SFA's expenses, I'd imagine both Lord Glennie and Richard Keen QC will not be highly amused at what now effectively was a complete and utter waste of their time and energy, so I remain highly sceptical of his claims that he'll defend our titles, . I have no problem praising Green if praise is due (see other thread re Green statement) but equally have no problem issuing brickbats if need be. Feel free to list those contradictions 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,137 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I don't for one second think it was the right of appeal to the SFA that was at stake that's as forgone a conclusion as you'll ever likely to get. It's our inalienable right to legal redress that I'm concerned about. Sorry but must have missed the rule that states licking Greens arse is mandatory. I'm highly sceptical of Green and his "investors" desire and ability to properly fund us in the long run, their Plan A and Plan B blew up in their faces and we're now on at least Plan C. Given that Green has decided to ignore the ruling of Lord Glennie that the SFA acted ultra vires in handing out the player registration ban and despite Lord Glennie awarding us the expenses of the litigation Green has now decided to accept the ban and agreed to pay the SFA's expenses, I'd imagine both Lord Glennie and Richard Keen QC will not be highly amused at what now effectively was a complete and utter waste of their time and energy, so I remain highly sceptical of his claims that he'll defend our titles, . I have no problem praising Green if praise is due (see other thread re Green statement) but equally have no problem issuing brickbats if need be. Feel free to list those contradictions Malcolm Murray made a public statement on the club website that the transfer ban was agreed to under duress, which would stand up in any future investigation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Malcolm Murray made a public statement on the club website that the transfer ban was agreed to under duress, which would stand up in any future investigation. Duress or not it rode roughshod over the judgement of Lord Glennie. 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.