RANGERRAB 3,266 Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 Oh yes, it's one of the points/questions I always raise, RangerRab. One of the key things that need to be cleared up and recompensed/brought to justice. I was merely answering the "fit and proper" thing - it did not actually exist in any meaningful form as an SFA or SPL requirement. I know that sounds crazy but then this is Scottish Football............ Being a fit & proper person IS in the SFA'a articles of association. They reserve the right to determine whether a person is or not. At the time of Whyte's takeover AJ was most vociferous in his opposition to Whyte. One wonders why the SFA did not take action at that time & investigate Whyte further.Did someone tell them not to ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveC 150 Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Thanks, Rab. I read a year ago that, although it was mentioned, it was stipulated that it was ultimately the club' s responsibility. If that is not the case, good. Even what you quote, though, does not say they have to do anything,just that they reserve the right to. If they chose not to exercise that right it is not something we can sue them for. Whyte's takeover and D+P's actions being criminal on the other hand would open lots of avenues. ...not that I think there is anyone at Ibrox thinking of pursuing recompense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cail Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Being a fit & proper person IS in the SFA'a articles of association. They reserve the right to determine whether a person is or not. At the time of Whyte's takeover AJ was most vociferous in his opposition to Whyte. One wonders why the SFA did not take action at that time & investigate Whyte further.Did someone tell them not to ? I'd say that is a given and the Club he or she is associated with is also a given. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,266 Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 I'd say that is a given and the Club he or she is associated with is also a given. Regan runs the SFA as instructed by Liewell. Likewise Doncaster at the SPL. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barca72 440 Posted May 10, 2013 Share Posted May 10, 2013 Regan runs the SFA as instructed by Liewell. Likewise Doncaster at the SPL. Likewise Rod MacKenzie of Harper McLeod on points of law. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,266 Posted May 10, 2013 Author Share Posted May 10, 2013 Likewise Rod MacKenzie of Harper McLeod on points of law. He doesn't even understand the SPL rules according to LNS. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alfiebass Posted May 12, 2013 Share Posted May 12, 2013 I agree. I would think you would have to start the case before the merger or the SPL will have ceased to exist. No, this is not the case. You would just go after the individual clubs that the SPL comprised of. If they participated in the vote to remove Rangers they would be included in the legal action as would any office bearers and legal advisors employed by the organisation. The reason for the latter being that these individuals ceased to administer the organisations rule impartially, indeed a case could be put forward that they deliberately operated a deliberate miss-use of the rules to bring about a certain situation. a major question that repeatedly arose was the continual use of a legal firm with links to the one member of the group who would benefit form their actions. I have yet to see a proper ruling on the conflict of interest question that this should have raised within the Scottish Law Society. 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.