ian1964 10,625 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 TWO members of the three-man Scottish Football Association panel which imposed a 12-month registration embargo on Rangers will play no further part in the case. Lord Carloway and Craig Graham, the chairman of Spartans, will be replaced if or when the SFA's Appellate Tribunal reconvenes to consider the transfer ban again. The panel was ruled to have acted outwith its powers by Lord Glennie when Rangers challenged the SFA in the Court of Session. Herald Sport understands that Lord Carloway was unhappy that his verdict was contradicted by another judge and wrote to the SFA to inform them he would no longer be available for any future cases. Graham cannot consider the case again because of the possibility that suspending or expelling the oldco Rangers' SFA membership (which the newco club seeks to take over) could create a vacant league place for which his own club, Spartans, could seek to apply. Graham removed himself rather than face a conflict of interest although he will remain available to the SFA for future cases. Only former Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan remains of the original panel. That means two new individuals from the dozens who comprise the SFA's Judicial Panel will have to be drafted in to study the entire case along with Cowan and deliver another verdict. Glennie concluded that only the specific punishments laid down in the SFA's rulebook for the charges Rangers faced â?? namely a fine, expulsion from the Scottish Cup or suspension or termination of membership â?? could be applied to the club. The extent of the SFA sanctions imposed on Rangers for charges of bringing the game into disrepute has become a central point in the ongoing talks regarding the transfer of the oldco club's licence and SFA membership. During three days of talks this week the newco representatives have so far failed to accept the imposition of the 12-month registration ban â?? which could still be applied if the club accepted it, despite Glennie's ruling â?? as a condition of their SFA membership being ratified. The newco club runs the risk of the Appellate Tribunal reconvening and imposing an even tougher penalty, such as withholding their ability to play at all. The SFA could still go ahead and grant Rangers newco a licence and membership â?? if the governing body receives the answers it has sought on the identity of those involved in chief executive Charles Green's consortium â?? which would allow the season to begin with the newco playing at Brechin City in the Ramsdens Cup next weekend. But unless the newco representatives change their attitude to accepting the 12-month embargo, and remove the need for the Appellate Tribunal to sit again at all, the season seems certain to start without a resolution to the issue of SFA sanctions still hanging over Ibrox. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/exclusive-two-withdraw-from-appellate-tribunal-to-rule-on-rangers.18197546 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 punished us illegally. they should have been sacked long ago. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluebear54 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Grant must have found it taxing to use "oldco" and "newco" so many times in such a short article. To my mind this stinks of SFA spin. Regan phones Grant and asks him to print what is required. Grant adds in a few "oldcos" and "newcos" and Bob's your uncle! Copy. Journalism at the lowest level. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 i wonder who liewell will get to replace them 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,191 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 i wonder who liewell will get to replace them I hope one of them is Lord Glennie 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I hope one of them is Lord Glennie hahaha imagine mate? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 one wonders why Craig graham only now sees a conflict of interest. why now and not origionally. the cynic in me says its because he knew the verdict before the trial and know it wasn't suspension. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Moon 1,191 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 one wonders why Craig graham only now sees a conflict of interest. why now and not origionally. the cynic in me says its because he knew the verdict before the trial and know it wasn't suspension. Could it not be in Carloway's case that his professional integrity is impinged? Maybe someone could shed light on this. Would his position be compromised if the SFA insisted on the registration ban that has already been declared unlawful in a court of law? I agree with Gunslinger on Craig Graham that there is now a conflict of interest there. Although at the time of the decision there was really little prospect of us going to Div 3. It looks like we are going back to the appelate tribunal. It amazes me that all clubs were allowed to vote in the first place as it could quite easily be argued that there is a conflict of interest with every single one of them. It is outrageous that it went to a public vote. Britain's got talent? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dutchy Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 i wonder who liewell will get to replace them There's still plenty of puppets in Scottish football, so finding people to do their bidding shouldn't be any trouble. Unfortunately! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Could it not be in Carloway's case that his professional integrity is impinged? Maybe someone could shed light on this. Would his position be compromised if the SFA insisted on the registration ban that has already been declared unlawful in a court of law? It amazes me that all clubs were allowed to vote in the first place as it could quite easily be argued that there is a conflict of interest with every single one of them. It is outrageous that it went to a public vote. Britain's got talent? See #108 in the "registration ban" thread I don't see how they can do that. In the case of Lord Calloway, he put himself in a position by sitting on the Tribunal where a judge of similar standing sitting in a different court could overrule him and that's exactly what happened. So hsi position became untenable. Other judges will most likely take the same view and refuse to sit on the Tribunals for that reason, so the chairs will be senior lawyers most likely in future. Your second point was well made by dB aweek or two back; you could hardly see Borussia Dortmund being allowed to vote on sanctions against Bayern Munich now could you? It would be laughed out of the Bundesliga or the DfB. 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.