buster.

Osijek 1-0 up Decent shot from 25 yards that took a deflection.

Maybe the beeb got going to the Faroes decision right. Runavik 2 Hibs 0 after 6 minutes !!!

The Scottish Football Association will have to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport to pursue a case against Rangers for an alleged breach of rules over a UEFA licence. The Ibrox legal team successfully argued that the issue would need to be dealt with by the Swiss-based court under the terms of the five-way agreement, which allowed Rangers to continue playing after the club was consigned to liquidation in 2012. The SFA board will now have to review the findings and decide whether to take the case to the Lausanne court. Rangers were hit with two charges in May relating to complying with UEFA rules, observing the principles of sportsmanship and “behaving towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith”. But the club refused to accept the notice of complaint and successfully argued at a preliminary hearing last month that the issue constituted a dispute under the terms of the five-way agreement between the SFA, oldco and newco Rangers and the two merged leagues. Under the agreement, any disputes relating to historical matters need to go to CAS........ An SFA statement read: “This preliminary issue raised by Rangers FC challenged the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case, and contended that the notice of complaint must be determined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. “Having received submissions on 26 June the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal have issued a decision upholding the preliminary issue raised by the club. “The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal proposes to continue consideration of the complaint until parties consider next steps and terms of reference for any remit to CAS.” The SFA board and compliance officer will now need to weigh up the costs involved and whether the case sets a precedent before deciding whether to proceed. The issue centred on when oldco Rangers accepted liability for a £2.8million bill from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs – the so-called ‘wee tax case’. The SFA opened an investigation into the controversy following evidence from former directors during a court case in which former Rangers owner Craig Whyte was cleared of several criminal charges. In a letter to member clubs in September last year, the SFA wrote: “On the face of it, there seem to be contradictions between those statements and written representations made at the time. “In 2011, Oldco indicated there was an ongoing dispute with HMRC, but the evidence in the Craig Whyte trial suggests that Oldco knew by early 2011 that it had no defence to HMRC’s claim.” It is understood the charges relate to the “monitoring period” after Rangers were granted a UEFA licence on March 31, 2011, and hinge on when the debt became overdue. Rangers declared in May that they would “fiercely resist” the charges and accused the SFA of being “intent on harming the game”. And they have now called on the governing body to move on as it contemplates whether to proceed with what could be an expensive litigation process. A club statement read: “Rangers has always been clear about the futility of this action and hopes the Scottish FA will now put the matter to bed and agree to move on and concentrate on the development of Scottish football in the interests of all members of the SFA.” http://sport.bt.com/football/sfa-must-go-to-cas-to-pursue-case-against-rangers-over-uefa-licence-issue-S11364284611735

The Glasgow club's legal team has successfully argued that the issues surrounding the licence for the 2011-12 season would need to be dealt with by the Swiss-based court under the terms of the five-way agreement, which allowed Rangers to continue playing in 2012.............. https://planetradio.co.uk/clyde/sport/football-news/sfa-will-have-to-go-to-court-of-arbitration-for-sport-over-rangers-uefa-licence/ @Uilleam

@Uilleam SFA JUDICIAL PANEL PROTOCOL 2017/2018 https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/media/1823/judicial-panel-protocol-2017-18.pdf ------------ Seems to provide various options including 8.4 Power to appoint clerk, experts etc. 8.4.1 In exceptional cases, in addition to the Tribunal Secretary, a Tribunal may, subject to the prior consent of the Secretary in respect of cost, appoint an additional clerk (and such other agents, employees or other persons as it thinks fit) to assist it in conducting proceedings. 8.4.2 In exceptional cases and subject to the prior consent of the Secretary in respect of cost, the Tribunal may obtain assistance from an expert to provide his opinion on any matter(s) arising from proceedings. 8.6.5 A Tribunal consisting of a single legally qualified person, who is a solicitor or advocate or member of the judiciary (Sheriff Court or Court of Session) of not less than 10 years’ standing (including cumulatively in a combination of the said functions), may be appointed by the Judicial Panel Secretary for the consideration and Determination of representations made under Paragraph 14.10 opposing the suspension of a Determination pending appeal.

We don't know how the JPD Tribunal was made up. I think I mentioned this at the time of the charges being brought and posted a link regards to SFA Articles wrt it. I'll look back at the thread in question. Edit. Thinking about it, it was more We don't know how the JPD Tribunal was going to be made up. Unless the SFA used the same for the Prelimminary Hearing as they had planned for the Principal. ------------- See what I mean about serving for little

If I've learnt one thing from the past 6 years, it's that predictions, speculation and guessing on legal matters and what may happen/have happened serves as much of a purpose as t1ts on fish.

Aye, might be a goodtime to go hard on Shifty McGifty and any others there is info on, either directly or indirectly.

The SFA brought the charges. edit. McGlennan gave notice he was resigning but would stay in post until 'late summer'. @colinstein Shifty is at the SPFL.

We look to have pre-empted what was originally to be a principal hearing and brought this challenge that meant it became a Preliminary Tribunal Hearing. Still someway to go if the SFA choose to go to CAS. Safe bet that the Res12ers will be at the Hampden door with placards forewith.

Well, they've definitely not found in The Timbo12s favour #Long+grass Howels of anguish from the Resolution12ers are forecast to be on the light breeze coming from the East !

Preliminary Tribunal Hearing Outcome: The Judicial Panel convened a preliminary hearing relating to the above case on June 26 2018. This preliminary issue raised by Rangers FC challenged the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal to hear the case, and contended that the Notice of Complaint must be determined by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Having received submissions on 26 June the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal have issued a decision upholding the preliminary issue raised by the club. The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal proposes to continue consideration of the complaint until parties consider next steps and terms of reference for any remit to CAS. https://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish-fa/football-governance/disciplinary/disciplinary-updates/

Name your winners for 2018/19............. SPFL1 SPFL2 SCup LCup EPL EPL2 FACup La Liga CL EL

Aye, I think the 'hold' put on the new stadium investment tends to reflect where his thoughts may be.

Don't dismiss the "almost 60 year olds" ya cheeky whippersnapper Vicente at 59................. A few years earlier Jupp Heynckes at 68

Are Ipswich a feeder club for HFs new club, Tractor Sazi ?

Good executive management needs a tadge of foresight or at least decision-making that has a sound base. During some of the times you point towards it was "institutional failure" and we still count the cost in salaries and pay-offs. - don't push unreasonable expectations - promise 'less' and deliver more - SG 1er season don't mention 'them', it's about us improving and building - Give SG&Co time, this season will probably deliver little tangible reward - Lets work towards there being real substance in our optimism for 2019/20 (politicans line but reasonable all the same, IMO) .

Only time will tell on much of the detail. In mitigation, you have to consider the state of our main rivals and the increased difficulty to access European revenue. I've never known Celtic to be in a stronger state, both on and off the park. Something that makes the job of whoever was in charge at the club so much more difficult and more easily prone to risk-taking or sanctioning such, eg. transfer policy for the previous two summers. European football revenue is oft mentioned as something we have to attain by 'overspend'. Given how the competitions are set-up/co-efficients/date of qualifiers, it is more difficult to qualify and for how long can you 'overspend' ? SG&Co pretty much HAVE TO work and have to be given time, regardless of what happens in the next few months.

Yes, good and not so good but my main bugbear is too long without a coherent, holistic strategy and the lack of a hard-nosed, more than competent CEO to carry it out......It's not a new thought, I wrote a Gersnet article that featured that, way back. Too much tends to be reactionary rather than following a strategy. eg. Counter-attacks on individuals on governing body boards came after the 2 SFA charges. Regards SDI, let's review that in a couple of weeks after the courtcase. Regards TP, it doesn't look good and I doubt that it will end well. As for not effecting the football club, (TRFC), IMO he's being disingenuous....... it might well effect RIFC and hence the club...eg. share issues ? Regards the football, it's been that much of a mess, AJ called it an "institutiuonal failure" We hope that the SG&Co appointments can help turn the tide. Hopefully, the changes and improvements to the football operation as a whole are a sign of 'strategic approach' at that level.

I only did it so as to give Petrocub a better chance Ive sent a link to the Petrocub Gaffer so he can print it out and pin it to the dressing room wall.

He put his money where his mouth was and with some others fought a battle no one else seemed prepared to do and that should be fully recognised but I don't think he or others for him have went about executive control of the club in a coherent fashion and that is partly why we struggle to take the next step.

It makes for an interesting debate.............. A more settled and clearly improving side on the park would certainly help some of the other issues. eg. players doing well = less pay offs and potential profit on player trading, increased European revenue, etc. There is an argument that suggest that this is the current approach, opposed to 'top down', which in some areas is proving very difficult. If so, it's a big gamble.

We aren't 5 players off Aberdeen, that's patent nonesense. We are currently way off Celtic, that is an obvious fact.

An answer to the straightforward question as to why the Faroes and not Macedonia would be interesting. It's closer and could be slightly cheaper but I don't think there would be a significant difference in cost. Maybe they think the Faroes tie is still in the melting pot, Runavik did get an away goal edit Thinking about it, I think they'd wrap an answer up in the Tuesday being Betfred Cup night.