pete 2,499 Posted April 17, 2017 Share Posted April 17, 2017 An example to RU and the fitba'. Twice as boring though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,807 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Given our luck, I can envisage the Legoeater scoring the winning goal and Rodgers and Co. coming out afterwards saying that the appeal was a "justified decision". All I now hope for is that our players won't suffer from any of his tackles ... and that the SFA will deem the appeal sneaky and ban him for at least three games (NO laughing at the back!). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Bear 633 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 To stop frivolous appeals, the SFA should automatically increase the number of matches the ban relates to in all cases where the appeal is lost. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
26th of foot 6,119 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 To stop frivolous appeals, the SFA should automatically increase the number of matches the ban relates to in all cases where the appeal is lost. Peter will tell Stuart to do so after Sunday's game. Unless of course, such a measure should interfere with post season tours of Japan. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barebear 37 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 To stop frivolous appeals, the SFA should automatically increase the number of matches the ban relates to in all cases where the appeal is lost. And the fee should be prohibitive. Is it not currently around the £150 mark? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 And the fee should be prohibitive. Is it not currently around the £150 mark? Pretty sure it's £1k mate. Could be wrong though? Hardly a kings ransom right enough. Pocket change to them. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete 2,499 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Pretty sure it's £1k mate. Could be wrong though? Hardly a kings ransom right enough. Pocket change to them. Yes 1000 pounds was written somewhere recently. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barebear 37 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Pretty sure it's £1k mate. Could be wrong though? Hardly a kings ransom right enough. Pocket change to them. Make it £30k and they'd not be so keen on playing that daft game. Whatever the fee is, it should be calculated to make the risk of losing it a factor in deciding whether or not to lodge. I'm sure the smart people with Blazers can do that calculation, or at least consult someone who can. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Make it £30k and they'd not be so keen on playing that daft game. Whatever the fee is, it should be calculated to make the risk of losing it a factor in deciding whether or not to lodge. I'm sure the smart people with Blazers can do that calculation, or at least consult someone who can. Small clubs couldn't ever appeal at 30k. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Small clubs couldn't ever appeal at 30k. Could make it reletive depending on sides? The bigger clubs pay more for example. Top 6 30k. Bottom 6 15k. Championship 10k. First 2k and 2nd 1k. Make it tiered to cater for different financial circumstances? 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.