forlanssister

Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman Judge pointed out there is no mention of any player registration ban. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman To reiterate - decision will be sent back to the appeal tribunal, not the original disciplinary tribunal. Judge had 3 reasons for this. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman 1. It's a "matter of some urgency" & will be quicker to send to appeal tribunal than start again at disciplinary tribunal. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman 2. The court only asked to look at "additional sanction" - no argument over fine or fact they brought game into disrepute. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman 3. The appeal tribunal itself can refer back to disciplinary tribunal if they think it's necessary. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman Apologies, sanctions available were fine, expulsion from game, not allowed to play in Scottish Cup or termination of membership. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman Basically, judge said because SFA imposed a sanction that wasn't one of those 5, they acted out with their powers. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman Earlier, when I said #Rangers had "won", I meant they've won today's court hearing. Which they have. Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman In terms of jurisdiction, judge decided the Court of Session did have it as SFA rules do not give right to appeal to CAS. ------------------------------------- Let's hope the victory is not a pyrrhic one.

Awaiting instructions from Liewell probably.

18s Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman Judge pointed out there is no mention of any player registration ban. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite 57s Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman The sanctions available are set out in SFA rules as: fine, suspension, expulsion from Scottish Cup & termination of membership.

Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman Judge decided the registration ban was not a sanction which was available to SFA disciplinary tribunal for bringing game into disrepute.

Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman #Rangers have also been awarded expenses. Expand Reply Retweet Favorite

Cara Sulieman ‏@carasulieman #rangers have won - the decision has been referred back to appeal tribunal.

The SFA articles don't allow for an approach to the CAS. Gregory Ioannidis ‏@LawTop20 Reports claim today that RFC could have appealed to CAS. The SFA rules do not provide for such appeal. More tonight on Newsnight Scotland

So basically it boils down to last year someone bought us for £1 and this year someone has bought us for £2, think I'll save up and bid £4 next year....

I think the bottom 2 have been satisfied, below is a MG02 regarding Bank of Scotland, pretty sure I seen one perhaps two with regards to the Kelvinside War Memorial Trust but cannot seem to find them at present.

But it would have honoured the Club Deck bonds so you have circa £7m less creditors, no? Looks like we're going to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire...

From the official site:

Just like I never made any claims of a cover up? I happen to believe that the self-regulatory system is inherently flawed not quite the same as believing the earth is flat though. Self-regulation in my industry is an absolute farce (I suppose the same could be argued for the statutory stuff too), any time I've came across it the last person it works for is Joe Public and for the life of me I fail to see why accountants can be the different. (Though I've never had cause to complain about mine, apart from the size of his bill of course).

And you do know what evidence has been laid? I believe all self-regulatory bodies fail to take adequate action after all if the self-regulatory PCC had taken adequate action the Levenson enquiry wouldn't be taking place.

Some may equate 10 lashes with a wet fag paper as action others may not. Would depend on what evidence is laid against them would it not?

£1,87m + £0,9m (interest) = £2,77m which is a wee bit under £9m http://www.plus-sx.com/newsItem.html;jsessionid=E80210C2534674462E67E4F026B67EEF?newsId=1145487 Of course Whytes' non payment despite previously agreeing too resulted in penalties and the monies the tax man arrested were credited against VAT and not the wee tax bill, though iirc a £500k payment was credited against the wee tax case.

Of course but then you have to factor in the gate receipts and hospitality etc which should be more than enough to cover any expenses incurred in competing in Europe.

The wee tax bill £9m? you're taking the piss, wasn't even half that and would have been nearer a quarter of that had Whyte paid it as agreed.

The figures from UEFA are net payments and they exclude gate receipts, hospitality etc.

17,124,000 Euros in 2009/10 from UEFA that excludes gate receipts. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/competitions/General/01/51/72/68/1517268_DOWNLOAD.pdf 18,526,000 Euros in 2010/11 from UEFA again excluding gate receipts. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Finance/01/66/11/07/1661107_DOWNLOAD.pdf 724,972 Euros 2010/11 from Europa League excluding gate receipts.

The fact that I view self-regulation as a weak sop does not equate to a cover up far from it in fact, a cover up suggests hiding guilt I make no such suggestion at all I merely hint that any action taken (imho) will be inadequate.

We're apparently going to be on Newsnight (not Newsnicht!) at 22.45 on Tuesday.

Perhaps so but was I who was quoted.

Who said they'd cover up anything?

I thought we were challenging on the grounds that the SPA acted ultra vires in imposing the registration ban.

According to Gregory Ioannidis (the sports lawyer guy) the SFAs' Articles don't permit an appeal to CAS because they claim the findings of the Appellate Tribunal are final and binding. It appears once more we find ourselves in uncharted waters.