The Rangers Saga and Fallout Thread

McMav · 30 May 2012 at 13:21

steve1873 said:
And what have Rangers done?

Failed to pay taxes, which is a matter between HMRC and Rangers and has resulted in the club being placed in administration and on the brink of liquidation.

Yet that was all the work of 1 man, who bought the club in a manner which is being challenged as fraudulent in the case against Collyer Bristow. So how or what could Rangers or anyone else have done to prevent Whyte's actions? He sacked or removed anyone who spoke out against him. Remember Martin Bain. Remember Donald McIntyre?

The bottom line is, Rangers the club did not pay taxes. That much is true. And in doing so did bring the game into disrepute and deserved a punishment. However, the disrepute charges DID have some mitigating circumstances which the tribunal and appeal tribunal failed to recognise and made up a sanction that they were not entitled to utilise. Questions have to be asked, who advised this and why?

I have a feeling I know at least one person at the SFA who will have been involved.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 13:23

GeneralD said:
So the alternative now is possibly expulsion or suspension, either would be the death nail. One season of embarrassment vs the death of rangers, if I supported rangers I know which I would prefer.

What part are you failing to understand? The sanction was unlawful. They have a list of sanctions they can choose from. Why should Rangers or any other club or business be sanctioned in an inappropriate and unlawful manner? That is not natural justice. Do you think football is somehow special in that it can circumvent the laws of the land?

Nauggie · 30 May 2012 at 13:32

steve1873 said:
What part are you failing to understand? The sanction was unlawful. They have a list of sanctions they can choose from. Why should Rangers or any other club or business be sanctioned in an inappropriate and unlawful manner? That is not natural justice. Do you think football is somehow special in that it can circumvent the laws of the land?

Fairly obvious why FIFA insist teams do not go to civil court. Imagine team loses world cup on bad penalty decision - next day court summons - 12 months later after expensive legal fees other team awarded cup. Now while this may seem fair in a single situation involving your team but it would happen every weekend in every league and the sport would die in quagmire of lawyers and the obvious insistence on keeping teams out of civil courts to challenge punishments.

Which is why FIFA have no choice but hammer down on Rangers for not using CAS.

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 13:37

Nauggie said:
Fairly obvious why FIFA insist teams do not go to civil court. Imagine team loses world cup on bad penalty decision - next day court summons - 12 months later after expensive legal fees other team awarded cup. Now while this may seem fair in a single situation involving your team but it would happen every weekend in every league and the sport would die in quagmire of lawyers and the obvious insistence on keeping teams out of civil courts to challenge punishments.

Which is why FIFA have no choice but hammer down on Rangers for not using CAS.

SFA's rules do not stipulate that an appeal has to be taken to CAS.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 13:38

Nauggie said:
Fairly obvious why FIFA insist teams do not go to civil court. Imagine team loses world cup on bad penalty decision - next day court summons - 12 months later after expensive legal fees other team awarded cup. Now while this may seem fair in a single situation involving your team but it would happen every weekend in every league and the sport would die in quagmire of lawyers and the obvious insistence on keeping teams out of civil courts to challenge punishments.

Which is why FIFA have no choice but hammer down on Rangers for not using CAS.

The CAS was not an avenue available to Rangers as it was not an agreed method of dispute resolution within the SFA's charter. The only option Rangers (rather Duff & Phelps) had was to take the matter to a civil court.

I know full well why FIFA do not want to allow clubs the avenue to use civil courts. Because they are a cartel and like to think of themselves as above the law, which has been proven not to be the case time and again.

TheGamingGeneral · 30 May 2012 at 13:38

steve1873 said:
What part are you failing to understand? The sanction was unlawful. They have a list of sanctions they can choose from. Why should Rangers or any other club or business be sanctioned in an inappropriate and unlawful manner? That is not natural justice. Do you think football is somehow special in that it can circumvent the laws of the land?

Are you thick? You could have been thrown out, rangers would be as dead as a dodo. So they came up with the transfer ban to satisfy the need to punish while not killing the club. The sanction was not as bad as It could have been because it was lawful to terminate your membership but they threw you a life line and rangers spat in there face.

As far as the law of the land is concerned, it won't matter if you are expelled from Scottish football, you can go sign messi if you want because it's FIFA and UEFAs competition, you won't take part.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 13:40

Nauggie said:
Fairly obvious why FIFA insist teams do not go to civil court. Imagine team loses world cup on bad penalty decision - next day court summons - 12 months later after expensive legal fees other team awarded cup. Now while this may seem fair in a single situation involving your team but it would happen every weekend in every league and the sport would die in quagmire of lawyers and the obvious insistence on keeping teams out of civil courts to challenge punishments.

Which is why FIFA have no choice but hammer down on Rangers for not using CAS.

And your scenario also doesn't fit since gou have used an example of an on the field sporting decision as opposed to an arbitrary disciplinary procedure. The 2 are very different.

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 13:42

Nauggie said:
While we agree SFA have lots to answer for. The point I'm making is Rangers are in exactly the same position FC Sion were where a civil judge ruled in favour of Sion in a court case. Even if the SFA agree to lift the transfer ban the precedent is Rangers would be thrown out of Europe and have to be punished further. (36 point deduction in Sions case)

Th FC Sion Case was very different. The original transfer embargo was a sanction from FIFA for "tapping up". Rangers were sanctioned by the SFA. Not FIFA

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 13:43

GeneralD said:
Are you thick? You could have been thrown out, rangers would be as dead as a dodo. So they came up with the transfer ban to satisfy the need to punish while not killing the club. The sanction was not as bad as It could have been because it was lawful to terminate your membership but they threw you a life line and rangers spat in there face.

As far as the law of the land is concerned, it won't matter if you are expelled from Scottish football, you can go sign messi if you want because it's FIFA and UEFAs competition, you won't take part.

Am I thick? I'm not the 1 confusing the words "have" and "of".

They can't just come up with punishment. They had a list of sanctions available to them. They failed to apply them correctly. Tried to throw Rangers a lifeline??? Do me a favour!

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 13:47

GeneralD said:
Are you thick? You could have been thrown out, rangers would be as dead as a dodo. So they came up with the transfer ban to satisfy the need to punish while not killing the club. The sanction was not as bad as It could have been because it was lawful to terminate your membership but they threw you a life line and rangers spat in there face.

As far as the law of the land is concerned, it won't matter if you are expelled from Scottish football, you can go sign messi if you want because it's FIFA and UEFAs competition, you won't take part.

You clearly don't understand how the rules of the game work. The SFA cannot make things up as they see fit. Any change has to be ratified by all the clubs, or possibly FIFA.

Why do you think the clubs are meeting to change the rules regarding administraion? Why do you think the SFA has to ask them for permission to change the rules?

The punishment wasn't in the rule book. The SFA don't have the powers to implement punishments that aren't in the rule book. The SFA made a mistake and now have to go back and rectify it.

It's really not rocket science.

TheGamingGeneral · 30 May 2012 at 13:54

So now they risk being killed off? Great plan.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 13:54

Is it just me or has the level of Rangers hatred gone up since yesterday, when a judge ruled Rangers had been treated unlawfuly? How bizarre. :confused:

Surely any and all venom should be aimed towards Hampden. Yeaterday showed up the SFA as at best incompetent. At worst corrupt.

McMav · 30 May 2012 at 13:58

steve1873 said:
Is it just me or has the level of Rangers hatred gone up since yesterday, when a judge ruled Rangers had been treated unlawfuly? How bizarre.

Surely any and all venom should be aimed towards Hampden. Yeaterday showed up the SFA as at best incompetent. At worst corrupt.

Are you surprised??

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 14:01

GeneralD said:
So now they risk being killed off? Great plan.

No, the SFA have to go back and reconsider the options available to them. They have already stated that suspension or expulsion were too severe. That only leaves suspension from the Scottish cup.

Since the fine is already at the maximum, I would guess that suspension from the Scottish Cup is the likely punishment that will be handed down. I would also guess that it will be a 3-5 year suspension.

chameleon · 30 May 2012 at 14:02

Easy to spot which posters are rangers fans. All the poor, hard done by, big boys are picking on us sorta posts.
Like it or not, the punishment was handed down by a system agreed to by Rangers along with every other club in the league but when a decision goes against them, it's all boohoo I'm going to court. It looks like DnP took a purely business decision to go to court. I doubt it had anything to do with football.
I'm not partisan here, tbh I can't stand football anyway.

steve1873 · 30 May 2012 at 14:03

McMav said:
Are you surprised??

Not really. It kinda somes up the small mindedness and petty jealousy that is prevalent in Scotland. You only have to look at the amount of Scots with a chip on their shoulder towards England over a battle in the 1300's. But that is getting a little off topic. :eek:

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 14:04

McMav said:
Are you surprised??

I'm not.

Most of the haters aren't interested in the laws or rules. They just want to see Rangers killed off.

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 14:04

For the Rangers fans, say the SFA now expel you which is an option, would you rather stick with the 12 month transfer ban or are you happier following SFA guidelines and take the dismissal?

And why do you care if hatred has gone up Steve? Dont you sign "no one likes us, we dont care?" It seems you do care that no one likes you.

Gav · 30 May 2012 at 14:07

chameleon said:
Like it or not, the punishment was handed down by a system agreed to by Rangers along with every other club in the league.

No club in Scotland agreed to the punishment that the SFA handed down.

Hence why there was a court case.

Hence why the Judge told the SFA to go back and come up with a punishment that was in their rulebooks.

Metalface Mark · 30 May 2012 at 14:07

Gav said:
I'm not.

Most of the haters aren't interested in the laws or rules. They just want to see Rangers killed off.

Most of the Rangers fans aren't interested in the laws or rules. They just want to see Rangers get off no matter what damage they do to the game or who they steal from.