Rule 66 - Transfer Embargo

I wonder if they even read the rules before making up random sanctions.

Rule 2 requires Rule 1 to be broken but we're found Not Proven in Rule 1.

Rule 66 doesn't provide for transfer embargos yet they made that up.
============================

Rangers will most likely get some satisfaction from the appeal process....That is if Ally hasn't made it worse.

PBN illuminate us with what you see as a fit punishment then?

Bridge

Apply the rules we have fairly and you have no complaint from me. Make up stuff and then you open yourself to charges of bias or vindictiveness.

These are the SFA rule breaches, so throw us out the Cup. We've yet to hear the new made up on the spot SPL sanctions.

Welcome to my point. The SFA rules I've already copied and the available sanction, from their own rules. Transfer embargo is not one of the sanctions, nor is there a 'catch all we can make up any other we see fit' sanction listed either.
-----------------------------------------

look at rule 94.1 and 95 of their articles of association

they can impose any sanction they think is approriate..and in cases of administration with monies owed to clubs a transfer embargo as with Portsmouth is not new nor unusual.

They've not made anything up.

Welcome to my answer

You do know that Portsmouth had a transfer embargo only when in admin or when transfer windows were shut?

PBN illuminate us with what you see as a fit punishment then?
------------------------------------

An appointment with Victim Support Scotland I would guess

You do know that Portsmouth had a transfer embargo only when in admin or when transfer windows were shut?
-----------

Why would Rangers need to exactly replicate the application of the ban to Portsmouth?

Transfer embargo's are neither unusual nor new

The sanctions are not definitive and the panel can go outside their standard list so long as the sanction is not greater than the highest punishment listed which I imagine would be throwing the club out the game.

Just in case you shower a Derry Masons forget...there was a QC presiding over this.

They tend to know their stuff

And the SFA are publishing their findings too

Just a wee point or two. Rule 1 refers to the club as an entity, rule 2 refers to individual office bearers at the club. Therefore you can have not proven in the case of the club as a whole,but proven in the case of individual(s). As to the non identification issue involved in the present furore,this was agreed a year ago by ALL clubs in the SPL including Rangers.