Club Statement

[L72 539]

Rangers FC today has been found by a Scottish FA judicial panel to have been in breach of Disciplinary Rule 38, following a remark made during commentary of the Hibernian v Rangers game in May. The club has been fined £3,000.

 

We feel it is necessary to highlight the broader concerns this outcome raises and the wider implications this has for clarity and confidence in their regulatory processes.

 

John Brown spoke emotionally and spontaneously as someone who cares deeply about the club. His words were not scripted, and they were not an official club comment.

 

The ruling however sets a precedent where even spontaneous, corrected remarks made during live coverage of a clear refereeing error are enough to trigger a formal sanction. That is neither proportionate nor consistent, especially when other clubs have made stronger comments on official platforms without consequence.

 

As part of our defence today, we flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels. These incidents raise legitimate questions about Scottish FA rules and how consistently they are enforced. To our knowledge, none of these cases appear to have resulted in charges against the respective clubs.

 

The lack of consistency with the Scottish FA’s policing of similar incidents leaves more questions than answers.

 

That is why we will be contacting the Scottish FA Chief Executive and President to seek clarity on what policies and processes the Compliance Officer has in place, if any, to ensure a consistent and proportionate approach to enforcement and the equal treatment of member clubs.

 

We shall also be asking the Scottish FA whether they accept that a rule that cannot be applied consistently across all clubs and all platforms risks losing credibility as a fair and enforceable regulation.

 

Our aim here is to understand the rationale behind the differing outcomes. A lack of consistency, or the perception of it, undermines confidence in the disciplinary process and exposes all member clubs to uncertainty about what is and is not allowed.

 

There remains no clear guidance on how clubs are expected to manage live broadcast content, though we note the panel acknowledged that the club’s internal editorial guidelines may serve as a constructive step for others going forward.

 

To be clear, we referenced these other examples not to suggest they should have resulted in sanctions, but to highlight the clear inconsistency in how similar incidents have been handled. Club media channels are, by nature, passionate and partisan. Informal, tongue-in-cheek and emotional commentary comes with the territory, especially in live settings.

 

But, in choosing to pursue this case, the Scottish FA has opened the door to closer scrutiny of how similar situations are handled going forward. If this is now the standard, they will be watched closely to ensure it is applied across the board, consistently, without exception and without favour

 

Edited 5 hours ago by L72

[buster. 5,846]

I'd be more concerned with the new Articles of Association that the consortium want to bring in and the reduction in transparency.

[Student 15]

I can see the lack of consistency argument but it was a stupid remark by Brown on Rangers official tv channel.

[L72 539]

2 minutes ago, Student said:

I can see the lack of consistency argument but it was a stupid remark by Brown on Rangers official tv channel.

He was a guest though, he wasn't giving his opinion as anything other than a punditry guest on a partisan club TV channel.

 

Which he was also quickly shot down by Tom Miller.

 

This wasn't an official viewpoint of Rangers FC, and other clubs haven't been held to the same account.

[Ready1314 169]

3 minutes ago, Student said:

I can see the lack of consistency argument but it was a stupid remark by Brown on Rangers official tv channel.

Far worse said on other channels and never a thing is said about it.

We should not pay the fine.

[Student 15]

2 minutes ago, L72 said:

He was a guest though, he wasn't giving his opinion as anything other than a punditry guest on a partisan club TV channel.

 

Which he was also quickly shot down by Tom Miller.

 

This wasn't an official viewpoint of Rangers FC, and other clubs haven't been held to the same account.

I agree but Brown's comment was unnecessary, could have used the word 'incompetent' for example.

[buster. 5,846]

".....As part of our defence today, we flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels. These incidents raise legitimate questions about Scottish FA rules and how consistently they are enforced. To our knowledge, none of these cases appear to have resulted in charges against the respective clubs....."

 

________

 

How did the SFA respond to that ?

[Bluedell 6,350]

Great statement.

[Rousseau 12,232]

14 minutes ago, buster. said:

".....As part of our defence today, we flagged numerous examples of similar incidents on club channels. These incidents raise legitimate questions about Scottish FA rules and how consistently they are enforced. To our knowledge, none of these cases appear to have resulted in charges against the respective clubs....."

 

________

 

How did the SFA respond to that ?

[Rousseau 12,232]

Je suis Bomber.