Court Decision Due At 3.30pm Tuesday.

[craig 5,199]

I'm in the office with a couple of Tims now, and to be honest they were fair enough about it. That's just one zoomer on twitter.

 

There's a lot about CFC that I oppose, but I've never had a beef with the straight-up football fans on their side. Don't tar them all with the same brush - I don't like it when that way of thinking is applied the other way round.

 

Fair point. I dont either, but I get the impression that the outlandish ones are gaining in numbers and becoming more than just a small minority. Just ask Mad Joe.

 

It could also be the technological age that we are in that some of these crazy comments can be made online and then reverberate quickly, whereas in the past they would be passed on by word of mouth only.

 

It is infuriating though when a judge is merely doing his job and gets a death threat.

[caseyjones 0]

Just watch folks... the SFA will take this "loss" and turn it into a win by suspending us. Or worse.

 

Actually.... how could they give us a transfer embargo, which is upheld on appeal. Then we win a "civil" case, it goes back to the appeal tribunal and they then decide to INCREASE the ban. Can they actually do that ? The appeal tribunal originally (if we go by O Neill's statement) gave a punishment which they felt was appropriate and that a suspension was too great a sanction.... so they then "lose" this, bring it back to the appeal tribunal and determine they should increase it ?

 

Makes little sense to me.

 

They would need to give one of the above punishments which is written down. As of today's ruling, a transfer embargo doesn't exist, per se. I feel that we could end up in a heap more trouble that we won't be able to appeal. A newco being one of them.

[Thinker 887]

Just watch folks... the SFA will take this "loss" and turn it into a win by suspending us. Or worse.

 

Actually.... how could they give us a transfer embargo, which is upheld on appeal. Then we win a "civil" case, it goes back to the appeal tribunal and they then decide to INCREASE the ban. Can they actually do that ? The appeal tribunal originally (if we go by O Neill's statement) gave a punishment which they felt was appropriate and that a suspension was too great a sanction.... so they then "lose" this, bring it back to the appeal tribunal and determine they should increase it ?

 

Makes little sense to me.

 

A suspension would screw the Sky deal, hurt SPL attendance figures, cause loss of sponsors, etc. which in turn would sink and seriously damage some SPL member clubs. I don't think they have any other option but to admit they shouldn't be making rules up on-the-fly and take their bloody nose.

[Guest cail]

If we had to give them a moral victory then i'd be willing to accept a Scottish Cup ban for one season and on every Scottish Cup weekend i'd line up glamorous friendlies against the Worlds biggest Clubs to line our pockets and take the shine off their little tournament,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just for one year anyway.

 

Petty i know but anything to fuck them up for trying TOO hard to screw us over.

[caseyjones 0]

A suspension would screw the Sky deal, hurt SPL attendance figures, cause loss of sponsors, etc. which in turn would sink and seriously damage some SPL member clubs. I don't think they have any other option but to admit they shouldn't be making rules up on-the-fly and take their bloody nose.

 

Do you think that they are simply going to forget all about everything, especially with FIFA on their case?

[caseyjones 0]

If we had to give them a moral victory then i'd be willing to accept a Scottish Cup ban for one season and on every Scottish Cup weekend i'd line up glamorous friendlies against the Worlds biggest Clubs to line our pockets and take the shine off their little tournament,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,just for one year anyway.

 

Petty i know but anything to fuck them up for trying TOO hard to screw us over.

 

 

That kills the CVA.

[big tam 0]

That kills the CVA.

 

yes seen that being reported on twitter, we have to be in all domestic competitions for CVA to go through, more trouble ahead Casey i think

[der Berliner 3,747]

Blair yesterday told us that having a license from the SFA is no requirement for being part of the SPL. Just in case.

 

BTW, we just got a legal opinion on that matter, we don't have sued the SFA or the like. It was said - on that other grand board - that both FIFA and UEFA have told the SFA that their registration embargo was unlawful and they won't get involved. No sources at the time and I haven't checked back since then.

 

EDIT: Another strange occasion that once we get a result (not that often these past 6 months), people instantly come up with this or that theory how it could/may/will hurt us. On any other day, I would say: "Only on FF!"

Edited May 29, 2012 by der Berliner

[caseyjones 0]

Duff & Phelps, the administrators of Rangers Football Club, issued the following statement today.

 

Paul Clark, Joint Administrator said: "We welcome the decision by Judge Lord Glennie today that vindicates the Club's position that the original SFA judicial panel tribunal and the appellate tribunal acted beyond their powers in imposing a transfer embargo on the Club.

 

"The costs for this legal action have been awarded against the SFA and it is our position it is very regrettable that court action was required.

 

"Both we, and the SFA, will have to study the full ramifications of the judgment when it is published and either side has 21 days in which to decide the next course of action or whether they wish to appeal."

[the gunslinger 3,366]

oh dear oh dear.