buster. 4,808 Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Preliminary Tribunal Hearing Outcome: The Judicial Panel convened a preliminary hearing relating to the above case on June 26 2018. This preliminary issue raised by Rangers FC challenged the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case, and contended that the Notice of Complaint must be determined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Having received submissions on 26 June the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal have issued a decision upholding the preliminary issue raised by the club. The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal proposes to continue consideration of the complaint until parties consider next steps and terms of reference for any remit to CAS. https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 So they've found in our favour! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 19, 2018 Author Share Posted July 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Bluedell said: So they've found in our favour! Well, they've definitely not found in The Timbo12s favour #Long+grass Howels of anguish from the Resolution12ers are forecast to be on the light breeze coming from the East ! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 19, 2018 Author Share Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) We look to have pre-empted what was originally to be a principal hearing and brought this challenge that meant it became a Preliminary Tribunal Hearing. Still someway to go if the SFA choose to go to CAS. Safe bet that the Res12ers will be at the Hampden door with placards forewith. Edited July 19, 2018 by buster. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinstein 294 Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 What will be McGlennan's roll now that he's resigned ( was it him who brought the "revised charges "?) or MacShifty should he be still on the Hampden premises ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 19, 2018 Author Share Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, colinstein said: What will be McGlennan's roll now that he's resigned ( was it him who brought the "revised charges "?) or MacShifty should he be still on the Hampden premises ? The SFA brought the charges. edit. McGlennan gave notice he was resigning but would stay in post until 'late summer'. @colinstein Shifty is at the SPFL. Edited July 19, 2018 by buster. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,409 Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 The statement says that we " challenged the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case". Does this mean that we argued -that such a panel would be acting ultra vires, or -that such a panel would be incapable of forming an objective and fair judgement, or -that such a panel was in some other way not competent to hear the case - 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uilleam 5,409 Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Just now, buster. said: The SFA brought the charges. Shifty is at the SPFL. They are all Shifty. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 19, 2018 Author Share Posted July 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Uilleam said: They are all Shifty. Aye, might be a goodtime to go hard on Shifty McGifty and any others there is info on, either directly or indirectly. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
buster. 4,808 Posted July 19, 2018 Author Share Posted July 19, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Uilleam said: The statement says that we " challenged the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case". Does this mean that we argued -that such a panel would be acting ultra vires, or -that such a panel would be incapable of forming an objective and fair judgement, or -that such a panel was in some other way not competent to hear the case - If I've learnt one thing from the past 6 years, it's that predictions, speculation and guessing on legal matters and what may happen/have happened serves as much of a purpose as t1ts on fish. Edited July 19, 2018 by buster. 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.