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.
Sign in if you want to comment
Rule 66 - Transfer Embargo
Page 3 of 3
posted on 26/4/12
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.
posted on 26/4/12
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
posted on 26/4/12
You do know that Portsmouth had a transfer embargo only when in admin or when transfer windows were shut?
posted on 26/4/12
PBN illuminate us with what you see as a fit punishment then?
------------------------------------
An appointment with Victim Support Scotland I would guess
posted on 26/4/12
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
posted on 26/4/12
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.
posted on 26/4/12
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
posted on 26/4/12
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.
Page 3 of 3