Will they mess it up again?

I'm not saying that they will or won't only that by opening up to a fresh independent panel is a very real risk given the nature of the previous report. You've effectively left them with little room to move around on this.

And in my experience organisations (both public and private) can be very vindictive given the opportunity - and all played by the book.

So you admit we wont get a fair hearing because they hold a grudge?

That is outrageous, corrupt and illegal.

I've a pal who has made a very comfortable living as a corporate lawyer. One of his standard jokes is that his advice to clients at the first meeting is mediate don't litigate. They invariably ignore this and so his second piece of advice is don't litigate unless you are certain of the implications of the outcome and they have no comeback on you. They invariably ignore this too. And so he litigates!

And in my experience organisations (both public and private) can be very vindictive given the opportunity - and all played by the book.

___________________________

If they go down this road I have already stated it will be easy to prove and take them to court again.

They have already stated publicly a ban is too harsh.

The SFA will have a long drawn out court case if they choose this route and the case will be for millions should they lose. Do the SFA want to risk admin as well?

They have already stated publicly a ban is too harsh.
---------
No it would not be 'easy' to prove anything of the sort.

Its a new independent panel: what the previous panel thought is not relevant to the outcome at all. As long as the punishment is on the list its fine with the likes of Lord Glennie. That was the only precedent that was established. Nothing more, nothing less.

No it would not be 'easy' to prove anything of the sort.

Its a new independent panel: what the previous panel thought is not relevant to the outcome at all. As long as the punishment is on the list its fine with the likes of Lord Glennie. That was the only precedent that was established. Nothing more, nothing less.

__________________________

We will soon see who is right by the new judgement shall we?

"outrageous, corrupt and illegal" is that rangers new motto then aye ?

Is it a new panel? I was under the impression it was going back to the same panel that heard the appeal. There is no new evidence to be considered simply a choice of sanction to be applied so cant see why they would set up a different panel.
Only way I can see it being another panel is if they combine this matter with the new breaches of the SFA regulations by challenging the ruling in the courts.

We will soon see who is right by the new judgement shall we?
--------------------------

Strangely, I would laugh at your own advice on this one as well

It is back with the same appeals panel who ratified the original disciplinary panel decision.

Same folk on the appeals panel.

So would be strange, to say the least, for them to come back with a punishment they have already stated was too severe for the "crime".

Remember, they are ONLY looking at a punishment for the disrepute charge. Nothing to do with anything for the CoS court case.