SFA Appeal to be heard next Wednesday

[ian1964 10,870]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=9718

 

A Judicial Panel Tribunal convened to hear the cases against Rangers FC and Craig Whyte today concluded their findings and set out the following outcomes:

 

Name: Craig Whyte, Director, Rangers FC

Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rules 66, 71 and 105

Outcomes:

The Tribunal found Craig Whyte guilty under Rule 66 and fined him £50,000.

The Tribunal returned a Not Proven verdict in respect of Rule 71.

The Tribunal found Craig Whyte guilty on three separate counts under Rule 105 and fined him £50,000 in respect of each breach.

The above sanctions shall be paid within 30 days, with interest of 4% per annum over the base lending rate of Bank of Scotland plc from the date of determination until paid.

Under Articles 94.1 and 95, the Tribunal expelled Craig Whyte for life from any participation in Association Football in Scotland.

Name: Rangers FC

Dates: 6th May 2011 to 6th March 2012

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Rules 1, 2, 14, 66, 71 and 325

Outcomes:

The Tribunal returned a verdict of Not Proven in respect of Rule 1.

The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 2 and imposed the maximum fine of £10,000 payable within 12 months.

The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 14 and imposed the maximum fine of £50,000 payable within 12 months

The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 66 and imposed the maximum fine of £100,000 payable within 12 months. In addition, the Tribunal imposed a prohibition in terms of Article 94.1 and 95 of the Articles of Association, prohibiting Rangers FC for a period of 12 months from the date of determination from seeking registration with the Scottish FA of any player not currently with the club, excluding any player under the age of 18 years.

The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty in respect of Rule 71 and imposed a censure.

The Tribunal found Rangers FC guilty of two breaches in respect of Rule 325 and imposed further censure.

 

Notes for Editors:

The Judicial Panel Tribunal shall issue a note of reasons in early course.

Both Rangers FC and Craig Whyte have a right of appeal against findings of guilt and any sanction imposed, within three days of receipt of note of reasons.

Explanatory Notes:

 

Rule 1 (b): All members shall:

(b) be subject to and comply with the Articles and any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;

 

Rule 2: Each member shall procure that its officials, its Team Staff and its players act in accordance with Rule 1.

 

Rule 14 (g): Full membership or associate membership may be suspended or terminated, or a fine may be issued, in any of the following circumstances:-

 

(g) where a full member or an associate member suffers or is subject to an insolvency event.

 

Rule 66: No recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee, or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall bring the game into disrepute.

Rule 71: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football and shall not act in any manner which is improper.

Rule 105: Any Party who is subject to a Direction from a Tribunal must follow that Direction as so Directed by the Tribunal. Any Party who fails to do so, may be found to be in breach of this rule.

Rule 325: Failing to pay to [Dundee United FC] on the day of the match monies due under Rule 46 c (3) and e of the Scottish FA Cup Competition Rules; being [Dundee United’s] share of receipts for the match; and by failing to pay to the Scottish FA within three days monies due under Rule 46 c (1) of the Scottish FA’s Cup Competition Rules; being the Scottish FA’s levy on admission charges for the above match.

Article 94.1: The Judicial Panel shall have the power to fine, suspend, or expel or in relevant cases to eject from the Challenge Cup Competition or apply such other sanction as is provided for in the Judicial Panel Protocol any recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA who, in its opinion, in any way brings the game in to disrepute or is likely to bring the game into disrepute or on any other grounds it considers sufficient and of which, subject to the rights of appeal, it shall be the sole judge.

Article 95: The Judicial Panel shall have jurisdiction subject to the terms of the Judicial Panel Protocol to deal with any alleged infringement of any provision of these Articles. A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, referee or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA if found to have infringed the Articles shall be liable to censure or to a fine or to a suspension or to an expulsion or to ejection from the Challenge Cup competition, to any combination of these penalties, or such other penalty, condition or sanction as the Judicial Panel considers appropriate, including such other sanctions as are contained within the Judicial Panel Protocol in order to deal justly with the case in question.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Zappa

[BrahimHemdani 1]

It will be interesting to read the note of reasons but I don't see how we can be guilty of a breach of Rule 2 if we are not guilty or not proven re Rule 1.

 

Also don't see how "a prohibition in terms of Article 94.1 and 95 of the Articles of Association, prohibiting Rangers FC for a period of 12 months from the date of determination from seeking registration with the Scottish FA of any player not currently with the club, excluding any player under the age of 18 years. " is relevant to a breach of Rule 66.

[Guest themightymcphed]

It will be interesting to read the note of reasons but I don't see how we can be guilty of a breach of Rule 2 if we are not guilty or not proven re Rule 1.

 

Also don't see how "a prohibition in terms of Article 94.1 and 95 of the Articles of Association, prohibiting Rangers FC for a period of 12 months from the date of determination from seeking registration with the Scottish FA of any player not currently with the club, excluding any player under the age of 18 years. " is relevant to a breach of Rule 66.

 

That was what I was thinking! What the fuck is this ban for?

[Craigy1881 79]

Appeal is next week Wednesday 16th May. let's hope it gets reduced.

 

Panel

 

Will be heard by Lord Carloway, Craig Cowan & Allan Cowan

[Calgacus 8]

Never did like Cowans, they're as bad as eavesdroppers.

[bigy 0]

Alasdair Lamont‏@BBCAlLamont

 

Panel felt offences were so serious that "only match fixing might be a more serious breach." More soon at http://bbc.in/zAIp4d

 

"whatever their position a number of individual directors and employees must have known that what was happening within Rangers FC...

 

... was entirely wrong and illegitimate but they chose to do nothing to bring it to the attention of the public."

 

"the Tribunal considered whether it should terminate Rangers FC membership of the Scottish FA and concluded that punishment was too severe."

 

 

"Tribunal was in no doubt that Craig Whyte, together with a number of business associates, had engaged in scandalous business activities."

 

What the....? Only thing more serious would be match fixing? So doping, harbouring paedophiles, etc, etc, etc is less of a crime than an innocent victim being fucked over by a rogue individual.

[pete 2,511]

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

"Appeared to Tribunal that in case such as this punishment should relate in meaningful way to unpaid tax arising from high wages & salaries"

 

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

"Tribunal considered whether should terminate Rangers' membership of the SFA and concluded punishment was too severe." http://bit.ly/JifJlO'>http://bit.ly/JifJlO

Expand

 

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

"The registration prohibition struck a balance which was relevant to the mischief and proportionate to the breach" http://bit.ly/JifJlO

Expand

 

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

Judicial Panel "concluded that only match fixing in its various forms might be a more serious breach" of regulations.

 

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

"AJ's perception was that Rangers' debt & facilities situation with Lloyds would be seriously prejudiced if didn't approve sale to Whyte"

 

 

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

"Mr Alastair Johnston (Chairman and Director) was put under pressure by Lloyds to secure approval of the sale."

 

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

It's claimed that Murray asked Bain to secure approval of indy board to sell to Whyte on May 6, 2011, which Bain declined to do.

 

 

Grant Russell ‏ @STVGrant

It's claimed in the SFA's 'note of reasons' on Rangers that D Murray told M Bain he was "under pressure" from Lloyds to sell to C Whyte.

Reply With Quote

[caseyjones 0]

Very strong words from the SFA - expect the sanctions to be upheld.

[caseyjones 0]

That's what we did wrong, people!

[the gunslinger 3,366]

so we didn't pay tax. same as dundee, motherwell Gretna etc.