Jump to content
 
 
 
 
Uilleam

Insouciance Resolves Resolution 12

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It appears that Rangers equanimity in the the face of the Resolution 12 fantasists and wishful thinkers has worked.

What looks suspiciously like masterly inactivity has seen off the Sevcoist bedlamites. 

The SFA will lay no charges against the Club.

What a waste of time and monies this pathetic exercise in hair splitting and point stretching has been.

 

However, there is no doubt it will live forever in the hearts and minds of the obsessed and the possessed. Nice. 

 

 

Scottish FA drops charges against Rangers over Euro licence

The game's governing body in Scotland won't be taking Rangers to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

SNS

Rangers were knocked out of the 2011/12 Champions League in the qualifying stages by Malmo.

By STV NewsMore details

19 May 2020 3:45 pm

By STV News

 stv@stv.tv

 

https://news.stv.tv/sport/football/scottish-fa-drops-charges-against-rangers-over-euro-licence?top

 

The Scottish FA has dropped charges against Rangers over alleged irregularities in paperwork which allowed them to compete in the 2011/12 Champions League.

It had been considering legal action in the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland, but has now effectively killed off any prospect of disciplinary action over the long-running issue.

The saga began when “contradictions” were found between information in Rangers’ application for a licence to play in UEFA’s premier club tournament and testimony given during the fraud trial of former owner Craig Whyte.

Rangers claimed in the application they had no tax debts – which must be declared to qualify for a licence – but former directors said in court that the club knew they had an overdue bill.

 

The Scottish FA brought charges against the club, but due to the ‘five-way agreement’, which allowed Rangers to play in the Scottish Football League after liquidation in 2012, any dispute between the parties has to be heard by the specialist sports court.

An SFA-convened independent panel upheld that jurisdiction agreement 18 months ago, with the governing body sent away to consider its next steps.

After a lengthy internal review and receiving legal advice, the Hampden board has now decided to drop the charges rather than fight a lengthy and expensive legal battle.

The club were originally charged under the 2011/12 rulebook, which only allowed for a standard fine of £5,000 for breaking the rules, or a top end fine of £10,000 in extreme circumstances.

 

The Scottish FA hierarchy felt the costs of pursuing the case in Lausanne, which could run to six figures, were prohibitive to a charge that would merit only a maximum £10,000 fine. The board were also advised that the prospects of victory at CAS were not high.

A brief statement on the Scottish FA website read: “A Judicial Panel convened to consider a Notice of Complaint raised against Rangers FC in 2018 – in relation to alleged new evidence regarding representations received prior to the awarding of a European licence for season 2011/12 – determined at a preliminary hearing that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the matter.

“Instead, it concluded that jurisdiction lay with the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

“Following consideration of the implications of such a referral, including legal opinion, it was the board’s unanimous position that this matter should not be referred to CAS.

“The Scottish FA now considers the matter to be closed.” 

European football’s governing body UEFA is unable to investigate issues more than five years old, meaning the decision has effectively brought the issue to an end.

Whyte was cleared of taking over the Ibrox club by fraud following a seven-week trial at the High Court in Glasgow in 2017.  

Edited by Uilleam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whyte ... has he actually been chased for ruining the club and what might be termed something like delaying filing of insolvency (well, by not paying VAT and PAYE)? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A quid pro quo for not taking legal action against the SPFL? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bill said:

A quid pro quo for not taking legal action against the SPFL? Probably not.

That was my first thought also, given the timing. A bit of appeasement by the SFA/SPFL as if they were doing us a favour on this when it had not an earthly of success in the first place.

 

It is either that or they were trying to sneak out this news under cover of awarding the bheasts their tainted title so as to not annoy the rabid hoard too much. That is probably closer to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.