Gribz 854 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Aye but a lot of our detractors seem to have deliberately ignored the fact:"Unfortunately, the route to apply to the Court of Arbitration in Sport was not open to the Club because the SFA's own articles fail to include a specific provision permitting appeals to CAS and the Judicial Panel Protocol contains a rule which prohibits any form of appeal to CAS or any other body.'' That is very key point and I hope FIFA have been supplied with this fact already. SFA are in a mess! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue 64 57 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I will wait till we are out of the debt they have sold us into to get mine. They have sold us into 8.2M of debt, not bad from 134M. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 They have sold us into 8.2M of debt, not bad from 134M. I think the fans may be more accepting of that if Green had said from the off he was effectively loaning the money from us to buy the club. Instead he said the club would be debt-free which clearly isn't true. So far I think Green has spoken reasonably well but because he's been a bit inconsistent and unclear (sometimes understandably so) there remain suspicion from a fan-base which has been led down the garden path once too often. I'd suggest that as long as the criticism of Green remains constructive, then it's healthy enough and he should look to address it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 And on that note... I'm glad he's made the statement and I'm glad the club are challenging the SFA ruling. However, it seems likely that transfers are a big part of Green's strategy if he does complete a sale. Be it the involvement of Stretford or McDonald, these guys seem to base their investment on transfer monies. I'd like to know what is Green's position on this. He has said he knows people who could turn round the whole playing staff of the club should the worst happen over the next few weeks which is fair enough but to what cost? For example, where does the money from any player sales go and will the club own 100% of any new signings? Overall, is he challenging the embargo because the SFA were wrong or is he challenging it because being able to trade players is key to securing the investment required for his bid to be successful? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue 64 57 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The sfa stated in court that expulsion or suspension were too severe, we already have the maximum fine allowed. They also stated expulsion from the scottish cup was too lenient, but how about a 3 or 4 year ban. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The sfa stated in court that expulsion or suspension were too severe, we already have the maximum fine allowed. They also stated expulsion from the scottish cup was too lenient, but how about a 3 or 4 year ban. I wonder how the sponsors will react to that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 The sfa stated in court that expulsion or suspension were too severe, we already have the maximum fine allowed. They also stated expulsion from the scottish cup was too lenient, but how about a 3 or 4 year ban. I've said all along the most likely outcome is a 12 month ban from the Scottish Cup. The club requested this in the first place and I can't see the SFA wanting us out the competition for any longer than that due to financial reasons. FIFA also wanted a quick resolution and, in actual fact, they already have that as the ball in now back in the SFA's court so I can't see FIFA or UEFA being too concerned with the club obtaining a quick judicial opinion on the SFA's inconsistent articles. We may be warned there but probably no more than that. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblue 64 57 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I think the fans may be more accepting of that if Green had said from the off he was effectively loaning the money from us to buy the club. Instead he said the club would be debt-free which clearly isn't true. So far I think Green has spoken reasonably well but because he's been a bit inconsistent and unclear (sometimes understandably so) there remain suspicion from a fan-base which has been led down the garden path once too often. I'd suggest that as long as the criticism of Green remains constructive, then it's healthy enough and he should look to address it. I dont consider being 8.2M indebt to ourselves as being "in debt" therefore i would consider us "debt free" 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
foggy dewhurst 0 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 after every sanction/sentance given to us we should put it in front of the best legal team we can get to go through it with a fine tooth comb and if it does not look right we should go to court every time if we dont the sfa and fifa and uefa will stamp the club into the ground . 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankie 8,570 Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I dont consider being 8.2M indebt to ourselves as being "in debt" therefore i would consider us "debt free" So the club don't have to repay this loan (plus interest) after all? Green may have been clever in his deal structuring but suggesting we'll be debt free wasn't his best moment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.