RANGERRAB

where is the sporting integrity here then

There isn't any Sporting Integrity.

Quite frankly I find it astounding in this day and age that UEFA cannot take on the responsibility to advise clubs before ties about which of their registered players are suspended and/or ineligible for that tie.It is truly mindblowing that a team can get thrown out of a competition because a player plays for the final 2 minutes of a tie which they'd won at a canter against weak opposition but due to an admin error the two games in the previous round did not count towards a suspension he and his club thought he'd completed.

The fact cannot be ignored the player DID serve a three match ban and that SHOULD be recognised by UEFA.If Uefa want to ban any player they should ensure the club is fully aware of that ban and its duration and when completed.

Its a bit like getting a years driving ban but six months later you get it extended for another six months because an admin error was spotted at the beginning and the first six months ban don't count. Nonsense

We can only watch there appeal and pray for a little luck and they win the appeal. Much ad I don't think it will happen. It would send timmy into overdrive now if they got it whipped from under there noses now. (Not that I expect it to happen but I've consigned myself to hoping that they do)

They didnt register the player for the St Pats games because he was suspended and couldnt play. Seems logical to me if the rules say otherwise

Also assuming they had to register him for the first leg against Septic(so he could play in the second leg as they thought) did it not flag up he couldnt play in either leg?

This story is complete nonsense and shouldn't even be discussed

FWIW the whole thing reeks to the high heavens. It looks to me like 'they' have been unduly assisted within UEFA.Shocking but thats the way these people operate. Corrupt, biased and working to their own agenda for their own.

Had the player played in any of the first three European games for Legia then you could say they had blatantly broken the rules. This was a genuine error whichever way you want to look at it which merited nothing more than a fine. He was given a 3 game ban and served a 3 game ban. What sort of rules honestly expect a club to register a suspended player for a game he cant play in ? It is the rule which is wrong not Legia Warsaw. Trying to differentiate between an ineligible player and a suspended player is laughable too

This Board are taking, taking , taking, they are doing as much harm to Rangers as anyone else.

Who is taking? Please explain

See #159, I think that was a slip and he means "registered".

But was he 'registered' ? We don't know do we?

The rules are a total farce if they result in a team which won 6-1 Agg over two legs being knocked out because they fielded an ineligible player for a couple of mins at the end of the second leg at a point where his inclusion should have had absolutely no bearing on the result.

And all the dhims were at Harthill and beyond by the time this guy came on as a substitute

Legia weren't thrown out either. Celtic were awarded the tie 3-0 and went through on away goals.

 

Stuttgart lost 4-1 at Elland Road following a 3-0 win in Germany. There was a play-off because Leeds were awarded a 3-0 victory which tied the aggregate.

Nonsense. Stuttgart won 3-0 at home and lost 4-1 away but would have gone thro' on away goals. But they fielded a fourth foreign player.UEFA then ordered a 1-off replay at a neutral venue

Now call me a cynic but does even you not think Legia got one hell of a worse deal than Stuttgart who even got to replay the game after winning the tie ?

The game against Celtic needed to be the fourth time that he had been listed as an eligible player since his red against Apollon. If it wasn't, as soon as he appeared it would have flagged up on UEFA'S disciplinary list.

How could he be an eligible player if he was suspended FFS?

Debrecen was for a player who wasn't eligible because he wasn't listed to play, not because of suspension.

 

See above for how they differentiate between the two.

But should this player have been considered to have still been suspended?

He had missed the three games he was suspended for.As I tried to explain to you earlier this is merely an admin.error. it hardly merits throwing a club out the CL does it?

Had he played in the St Pats games or the first round against you-know-who I could understand the furore but this is the worst decision I've ever seen from UEFA

Stuttgart were v Leeds a few years back. I think that one was to do with the '3 foreigners' rule.

It was and the game was replayed in the Nou Camp which Leeds won. Stuttgart weren't thrown out were they?

Not for a player who should have been suspended.

 

Peter Mate of Debrecen. Played in a 4-1 aggregate win in 2010 when he hadn't been named on the squad list. 15k fine.

And were Legia not entitled to think he was serving two games of his suspension by not registering him for the previous round?

They're hardly trying to cheat are they? A minor admin error hardly merits throwing the club out the CL does it?

Certain clubs & games will be scrutinised others less so. Lunny will no doubt put him in the picture before he leaves

UEFA might even support an Appeal against themselves as the outcome is so embarrassing.

 

UEFA can appeal against themselves as happened to us over certain chants.

Running out of time though. First games due to be played in 10 days or so.

Why does a club need to register a player for a tie for which he is ineligible for?

The player effectively served a three game ban

Disgraceful - he had effectively served his 3 game ban.

One wonders who the individuals were who sat on this committee.

Which part of 'no sporting advantage' are you struggling with?

Which part of the fact we're dealing with Liewell, Rhegan,Thompson, Petrie etc, are you struggling with?

They will find some other means to do this

That's correct. There are two issues here.

 

1. Did an ineligble player participate in the match?
   
2. 
   
3. 
   
4. What punishment would be appropriate?
   

 

The actual result on the field of play may or may not be taken into account in deciding on the punishment; though there appears to be a precedent for that, the actual circumstances of any breach this time will be the most relevant factor I would think.

A precedent was set with Debrecan in 2010. Unlucky bhoys

Chris Graham should fully focus on the current shenanigans. The result of the HMRC appeal won't change anything.

Won't change anything? Just wait and see what would happen if HMRC were to win their appeal.Title-stripping would be back on the agenda

Couldn't make it up mate.

One site said 85min. Checked stats of game it showed it as 88th min sub. .

 

Remember they already benefited from sion s expense not so long ago

Absolutely unbelievable if they get through on a technicality

Won't happen.They won't go thro this time. The guy should have been eligible as he'd served his suspension.Its just an administrative error.It had no bearing on the outcome whatsoever

I get the distinct impression the Court of Session will knock them back.

Then all will be revealed who was really behind all of this although the names are known to most of us anyway I'd presume.

They need to keep this going to the very last to protect the identities of those involved for as long as possible

Am I alone in wondering where our keeper is?

When did you last see Cammy Bell come out and make clean catch?

What does our £180k p.a goalkeeping coach think ?

I think teams now realise this and deliberately try to put the ball into our six yard box knowing he won't get it

Glad to have you back on board SC.

 

You are 100% correct about MF, as for once, was Merlin.

And what was this 'cast iron proof' then?

If he had nothing to do with Rangers account did he have any influence on its sale to Whyte?

His time at LBG must have been of immense benefit to him in the role he got at Harper McLeod for the SPL's dual contracts investigation

He's going into the last year of his contract. No way they'll pay that much

No mate, we don't. Merlin interviewed the man you are talking about and was shown cast iron proof that MF had nothing to do with Rangers account. You may however find out whoever was in charge of our account had similar motive but I don't believe it was who you think it was mate.

he and his chum may have had nothing to do with the account but does that mean they'd noting to do with the sale ? two separate issues