They originally considered the punishment as "appropriate" and then said it was "too severe".
A fine is too lenient an offence.
I think it was ToTay that said earlier, there is a lot of pass the parcel going on.....
Henrik,
When being sentanced for an offence, you can only be sentanced to the punishment which is equal to, or less than the offence.
Its a basic principle in law that you cannot be punished more than the offence you performed.
Thats why you often hear judges when passing sentance saying that they would like to be able to apply harsher sentances, but the law does not allow it.
The SFA have openly admitted that being kicked out would be too harsh, so any good lawyer can point this out in court.
this has nothing to do with law, the sfa can kick them out of the federaation and rangers can do nothing about it
Doubt it buzz, We will just take them to court again.
the court can't do a thing about how the sfa want to run its own federation unless its illegal, they got involved this week because they attempted to stop a business trading.
If they terminate our membership it effectively stops us trading doesn't it?
I think they'll ban us from the Scottish Cup at most.
1. It was not the nature of the punishment that questioned buzz, just the rules for applying it. If Rangers had been fined, they would still have been allowed to take them to court.
2. Not that it matters hugely, but throwing Rangers out of the league is a bigger impairment to trade than a transfer embargo, so your point is ridiculous.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/304757-why-the-sfa-havent-breached-their-rules-in-banning-rangers-from-signing-players/
The problem is the SFA will get sued massively if they suspend us, as the SFA have already stated publicly it was too severe. In that situation Rangers will have nothing stopping them going to court against the SFA and maybe even FIFA as they will have nothing to lose at all.
Rangers wont get punished by FIFA unless the current case is followed through, nor will the SFA.
So the SFA ban us Rangers say the issue is sorted to the court and everyone is happy.
As I stated the other day the club will cut a deal with the SFA and the case has given them bargaining power. Will the SFA want a long court case otherwise?
but throwing Rangers out of the league is a bigger impairment to trade than a transfer embargo, so your point is ridiculous.
---------------------
If the SFA are bound by their list then its all open to play for and if the SFA stick to the list then how could a court find against them on the basis of the ruling the other day which was based on this technicality.
They should be thrown out for a season. Simple way to solve it, they have no other place to go.
That should read - 'so the SFA DONT ban us...'
Nameless one,
They have already stated that that punishment was too severe, a lawyer would rip them apart if they tried to apply it.
My point exactly Mitre. They have it on film and in writing that kicking us out is too severe. It will be easy to prove in court and a judge would see it as the SFA acting in a punitive (ie unlawful and not fit for the 'crime' manner just because Rangers went to court. Judges don't like other judges and courts being undermined.
It is funny how most Celtic fans want to go with the one that punishes Rangers unlawfully though, but what's new?
They have already stated that that punishment was too severe, a lawyer would rip them apart if they tried to apply it.
-----------------
The judge ruled on a technicality that you can only apply what is on the 'list' and because its a fresh panel its open and not based on any of the previous panel's judgement and delibertations.
Yes nameless one, I agree.
But the SFA have made it legally impossible to ban us. They really are rubbish at this.
Oh and its not a new panel, just a new appeal panel. The original judgement of kicking us out being too harsh stands.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The original judgement of kicking us out being too harsh stands.
------------
It doesn't because a). the panel is independent of the SFA - killing the vindictiveness argument, b). new panel members make take a less sympathetic view towards the club and they are allowed to do this irrespective of what the previous panel said, and c). if the panel members restrict themselves to the list then they are fine and not even Lord Glennie could use his judgement of the other day to tease it apart.
My own view is that you;ve taken a big risk, not just with a fresh panel but with the dual contract investigation. There will be people at the SFA looking for their pound of flesh. That is the nature of organisational beasts
"(U10878)
My own view is that you;ve taken a big risk, not just with a fresh panel but with the dual contract investigation. There will be people at the SFA looking for their pound of flesh. That is the nature of organisational beasts"
So in other words you are saying the SFA are corrupt??
They wont judge the case on merit, but instead will be vindictive in the judgement of our case?????
How dare they!!!!!!
If we lose our case, this will be the reason!!!!
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?
Sign in if you want to comment
Will they mess it up again?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 31/5/12
They originally considered the punishment as "appropriate" and then said it was "too severe".
A fine is too lenient an offence.
posted on 31/5/12
*for such an offence.
posted on 31/5/12
I think it was ToTay that said earlier, there is a lot of pass the parcel going on.....
posted on 31/5/12
Henrik,
When being sentanced for an offence, you can only be sentanced to the punishment which is equal to, or less than the offence.
Its a basic principle in law that you cannot be punished more than the offence you performed.
Thats why you often hear judges when passing sentance saying that they would like to be able to apply harsher sentances, but the law does not allow it.
The SFA have openly admitted that being kicked out would be too harsh, so any good lawyer can point this out in court.
posted on 31/5/12
this has nothing to do with law, the sfa can kick them out of the federaation and rangers can do nothing about it
posted on 31/5/12
Doubt it buzz, We will just take them to court again.
posted on 31/5/12
the court can't do a thing about how the sfa want to run its own federation unless its illegal, they got involved this week because they attempted to stop a business trading.
posted on 31/5/12
If they terminate our membership it effectively stops us trading doesn't it?
I think they'll ban us from the Scottish Cup at most.
posted on 31/5/12
1. It was not the nature of the punishment that questioned buzz, just the rules for applying it. If Rangers had been fined, they would still have been allowed to take them to court.
2. Not that it matters hugely, but throwing Rangers out of the league is a bigger impairment to trade than a transfer embargo, so your point is ridiculous.
posted on 31/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/5/12
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/304757-why-the-sfa-havent-breached-their-rules-in-banning-rangers-from-signing-players/
posted on 31/5/12
The problem is the SFA will get sued massively if they suspend us, as the SFA have already stated publicly it was too severe. In that situation Rangers will have nothing stopping them going to court against the SFA and maybe even FIFA as they will have nothing to lose at all.
Rangers wont get punished by FIFA unless the current case is followed through, nor will the SFA.
So the SFA ban us Rangers say the issue is sorted to the court and everyone is happy.
As I stated the other day the club will cut a deal with the SFA and the case has given them bargaining power. Will the SFA want a long court case otherwise?
posted on 31/5/12
but throwing Rangers out of the league is a bigger impairment to trade than a transfer embargo, so your point is ridiculous.
---------------------
If the SFA are bound by their list then its all open to play for and if the SFA stick to the list then how could a court find against them on the basis of the ruling the other day which was based on this technicality.
They should be thrown out for a season. Simple way to solve it, they have no other place to go.
posted on 31/5/12
That should read - 'so the SFA DONT ban us...'
posted on 31/5/12
Nameless one,
They have already stated that that punishment was too severe, a lawyer would rip them apart if they tried to apply it.
posted on 31/5/12
My point exactly Mitre. They have it on film and in writing that kicking us out is too severe. It will be easy to prove in court and a judge would see it as the SFA acting in a punitive (ie unlawful and not fit for the 'crime' manner just because Rangers went to court. Judges don't like other judges and courts being undermined.
It is funny how most Celtic fans want to go with the one that punishes Rangers unlawfully though, but what's new?
posted on 31/5/12
They have already stated that that punishment was too severe, a lawyer would rip them apart if they tried to apply it.
-----------------
The judge ruled on a technicality that you can only apply what is on the 'list' and because its a fresh panel its open and not based on any of the previous panel's judgement and delibertations.
posted on 31/5/12
Yes nameless one, I agree.
But the SFA have made it legally impossible to ban us. They really are rubbish at this.
Oh and its not a new panel, just a new appeal panel. The original judgement of kicking us out being too harsh stands.
posted on 31/5/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 31/5/12
The original judgement of kicking us out being too harsh stands.
------------
It doesn't because a). the panel is independent of the SFA - killing the vindictiveness argument, b). new panel members make take a less sympathetic view towards the club and they are allowed to do this irrespective of what the previous panel said, and c). if the panel members restrict themselves to the list then they are fine and not even Lord Glennie could use his judgement of the other day to tease it apart.
My own view is that you;ve taken a big risk, not just with a fresh panel but with the dual contract investigation. There will be people at the SFA looking for their pound of flesh. That is the nature of organisational beasts
posted on 31/5/12
"(U10878)
My own view is that you;ve taken a big risk, not just with a fresh panel but with the dual contract investigation. There will be people at the SFA looking for their pound of flesh. That is the nature of organisational beasts"
So in other words you are saying the SFA are corrupt??
They wont judge the case on merit, but instead will be vindictive in the judgement of our case?????
How dare they!!!!!!
If we lose our case, this will be the reason!!!!
posted on 31/5/12
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.
posted on 31/5/12
So you admit we wont get a fair hearing because they hold a grudge?
That is outrageous, corrupt and illegal.
posted on 31/5/12
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!
posted on 31/5/12
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?
Page 1 of 2