Rangers into administration

[henrik777]

The fact Rangers went to the Court of Session is widely reported. None of these professional news teams seem to have picked up on the fact they are not allowed to do this under Fifa rules and the last time a club tried this (Sion) it was potentially bad for the football in the whole country. Man Utd almost got a champions league recall until the Swizz FA hammered Sion with a 36 point penalty.

Sandy

Who knew  

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/103811-fifa-warn-scottish-fa-they-must-punish-rangers-for-using-law-courts/

FIFA warn Scottish FA they must act against Rangers for use of law courts
STV 29 May 2012 17:04 BST

Rangers will again go before a Scottish FA appeal panel, with a date to be confirmed.



FIFA has warned the Scottish Football Association it must take action after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge a registration embargo.

The Scottish Premier League side won a case at the Court of Session on Tuesday, with a judge ruling the Scottish FA had no power to impose a signing ban on the club for bringing the game into disrepute.

A statement from FIFA read: "At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.

"In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.

"As a general rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, as mentioned above the Member Association shall take direct action in order to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes.

"FIFA will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."

Rangers' case will now be referred back to the original appeal tribunal, which has been ordered to operate within the framework which exists.

Rule 66 allows for a maximum fine of £100,000 to be imposed, as well as ejection from the Scottish Cup, a suspension, expulsion from participation in the game and/or termination of SFA membership.


Sandy

[Teacake]

Well played Rangers, you've just won a game of bingo on the Titanic.

[maccol]

Tighty must be thanking his lucky stars this forum has run out of Rangers supporters. 

[henrik777]

Catching on now.

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4345788/Hampden-chiefs-summit-today.html

Boot Gers out!

TOO MUCH PRESSURE ... Stewart Regan
Pic: Kenny Ramsay
EXCLUSIVE
By IAIN KING
Published: Today at 00:12
RANGERS this morning run the risk of being booted OUT of Scottish football.
 48 comments



SunSport can reveal the SFA will today hold an emergency Hampden summit in the wake of yesterday’s Court of Session decision to scrap the 12-month transfer embargo on shamed Gers.

There is growing unrest among SPL clubs that Gers could yet wriggle free of real punishment for failing to pay £14.3million worth of taxes during the disastrous Craig Whyte reign.

Lord Glennie’s ruling that an SFA panel imposing a signing ban on Gers was unjust now has FIFA breathing down the necks of Hampden bosses.

SunSport understands SFA chief Stewart Regan will head a meeting of the SFA board and their legal advisers.

After their transfer embargo punishment was trashed, there are fears the Court of Session decision leaves Lord Carloway with little room for manoeuvre should the SFA choose to appeal.

One of Scotland’s top legal eagles has had his judgement called into question.

A Court of Session statement stressed Lord Glennie felt the SFA panel should have looked at the tariff of punishments they had available and NOT invented one like the transfer embargo.

That advice points to the highest sanction available in the SFA statutes — a £1MILLION fine and termination of membership.

That is the real risk Rangers are taking now if Lord Carloway has to hear the case again.

He has effectively been told by another Supreme Court judge his original verdict was wrong. Now he could take the view there is no point in fining a club with no money £1m.

And he could decide termination of membership of the SFA — or suspension for 12 months — is the only way to go.

When he assessed the case at the appeal, Lord Carloway pored over the decision of the SFA panel that consisted of QC Gary Allan, Raith Rovers director Eric Drysdale and broadcaster Alistair Murning.

He pondered the matter alongside ex-Partick Thistle chairman Allan Cowan and Spartans supremo Craig Graham.

They concluded the SFA panel had looked at the punishments available and felt they were, at one end, too extreme and, at the other, not extreme enough.

Lord Carloway felt it was competent for the panel to give a proportionate penalty to a club who have not paid their taxes and gained an advantage from that.

SFA articles state: “The Panel is empowered to make whatever sanctions it feels are appropriate.”

Their verdict, though, has now been thrown out and the SFA — who also have the power to kick Gers out of the Scottish Cup — have three weeks to appeal, while the other looming cloud is the fury of FIFA.

Football’s ruling body are angry the game has been dragged into the courts and could exert pressure on the SFA to deal with Rangers.

UEFA placed heavy pressure on Sion when they protested about the decision that kicked the Swiss club out of European football to allow Celtic back in.

Sion went to a Swiss court, who said the club should be reinstated in European football despite their breaking of a transfer embargo.

Sion then threatened to sue UEFA president Michel Platini for breaching his powers.

That infuriated the European bigwigs, who countered by vowing to ban Swiss clubs from Europe and kick their international team out of the game.

If the SFA are faced with those sort of penalties for not bringing their clubs to book then they could yet kick Gers out of football for a year — or for good.

These are the nightmarish issues facing SFA supremo Regan, his board and their lawyers.

The various scenarios could play out this way;

The SFA accept yesterday’s court decision, even though they find it wholly unpalatable.

The SFA appeal and win, then the penalty they see as fair stays in place, and Gers can’t sign any players over 18 for a year.

SFA beaks appeal and lose and see the transfer embargo scrapped. It is understood there is a deep anger inside Hampden over that prospect because they feel the punishment should not be neutered.

The SFA appeal goes back to Lord Carloway’s panel and he opts for a different option — like booting Rangers out of the Scottish Cup or even suspending their membership of the SFA.

The final scenario is the SFA don’t act then FIFA could get involved. The SFA would then bid to convince Gers the penalties for Scottish football are too great and they should accept the transfer embargo.

SFA statutes will be examined today as it was felt they didn’t have the proper wording to force Gers to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne first instead of a civil court.

FIFA will today begin to turn the heat on the Hampden hierarchy and if our whole game faces a beating then the threat of expulsion of Rangers will truly come into play.




Sandy

[henrik777]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/05/30/rangers-in-crisis-sfa-could-be-forced-to-shut-ibrox-club-down-for-good-86908-23878683/

Rangers in crisis: SFA could be forced to shut Ibrox club down for good
May 30 2012 By Keith Jackson

ibrox stadium large

THE SFA were last night threatening to shut Rangers down for good after the club’s administrators backed them into a corner in the Court of Session.
Despite successfully overturning a hugely controversial 12-month transfer ban, Duff and Phelps also triggered a full-scale FIFA probe into the escalating Scottish crisis.
News of Judge Lord Glennie’s decision to rule against Hampden’s top brass has infuriated the game’s governing body in Switzerland.
And, as a result, last night FIFA were preparing to wade into the saga by threatening to go to war with the entire Scottish game unless Rangers’ bungling administrators are forced to back down.
FIFA’s furious response – almost identical to the stance they took during a courtroom battle involving Swiss side Sion last season – could see Craig Levein’s national side booted out of the next World Cup and Celtic denied a £15million ticket into next term’s Champions League.
Motherwell could also be robbed of their chance to secure a spot among the European elite while Dundee United, Hearts and St Johnstone have been left to sweat over their own money-spinning places into the Europa League.
Very quickly the courtroom triumph was beginning to look like the hollowest of victories imaginable for Duff and Phelps, who may have left the SFA with little choice but to dish out an even heftier punishment for the rule breaches carried out by the Craig Whyte regime.
In fact, fears were growing inside Hampden last night that crisis-ravaged Rangers may have to be sacrificed, and have their SFA membership terminated, in order to spare the rest of the national game from FIFA’s wrath.
In an official statement from Switzerland, the game’s governors said they had not yet been informed of the row by the SFA.
But a senior source inside Sepp Blatter’s Nyon bunker told Record Sport FIFA are now prepared to fight tooth and nail, just as they did last season when Sion famously rebelled against the game’s authorities over their place in the Europa League.
And a spokesman warned: “In such a case, FIFA will ask the Member Association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.
“As a rule, in case a club is seeking redress in front of ordinary court, the Member Association shall take action to safeguard the principle laid down in art. 64 par. 2 of FIFA Statutes, which shall be, in view of art. 64 par. 3 incorporated in the Member Associations’ Statutes.
“FIFA will now closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible.”
Lord Glennie judged yesterday that the SFA’s judicial panel had acted outwith its own remit when it hammered Rangers with a year long ban from signing players. He also ordered the matter be placed back in front of the SFA’s appeals tribunal for urgent review.
But, having insisted that Whyte’s mishandling of affairs were so shameful that only match fixing would have been looked upon more seriously – the SFA have now been backed into a corner with almost no room to manoeuvre.
The decision to impose a 12-month embargo was seen as a compromise and a way to avoid having to take the ultimate sanction of booting Rangers out of the game.
But now, unless Duff and Phelps or Charles Green accept the original sanction the same appeals tribunal will have to choose between softening the punishment to include a possible ban from next term’s Scottish Cup – or taking the ultimate hard line by ripping up the club’s membership and banishing them into the wilderness.
But all of that was lost on the administrators yesterday who seemed to believe they had struck a blow for justice in the Court of Session.
Paul Clark 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 very regrettable that court action was required.
“We, and the SFA, will study the full ramifications of the judgment when it is published and either side has 21 days to decide the next course of action or whether to appeal.”
An SFA spokesperson later said: “We are surprised by today’s verdict at the Court of Session, especially since the original sanction against Rangers FC was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an appellate tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court judge.
“We will now consider our position with our legal advisers before making any further comment.”

Sandy

[henrik777]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/sfa-fury-as-judge-throws-out-rangers-transfer-ban.17734308

WEDNESDAY 30 MAY 2012 TEXT SIZE   SFA fury as judge throws out Rangers transfer ban

Jody Harrison
Reporter
RANGERS are facing fresh sanctions after winning a legal battle against the Scottish Football Association's ban on the club signing new players.

 

 
lord GLENNIE: Ruled in favour of lifting transfer ban.
The administration-hit Ibrox club is now in line for further punishment from Scottish football's governing body after persuading a Court of Session judge yesterday to lift the transfer embargo, which would have lasted for a year.

It had been imposed by a judicial panel of the Scottish Football Association (SFA), along with a fine of £100,000 on the club for bringing the game into disrepute, after former owner Craig Whyte took the club into administration in February.

The SFA, which has been left to foot the bill for Rangers' legal costs, will be required to impose another punishment. Only suspension, a further fine or expulsion remain.

Fifa, world football's governing body, last night warned action must be taken after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge the embargo.

The exact punishment is yet to be decided, but could involve the club being ejected from next year's Scottish Cup, or further fines.

It could even mean the doomsday scenario of Rangers being thrown out of football, although this remains an unlikely prospect, given the club's economic value to the Scottish game.

The SFA is angry that Rangers deliberately set themselves on a direct collision course with the game's lawmakers, with one source saying: "We could be looking at expulsion now. Rangers should be careful what they wish for."

SFA sources said a half-season suspension for Rangers was pointless, while stopping the team from playing pre-season friendlies was not a strong enough punishment.

Andy Kerr, president of the Rangers Supporters' Assembly, said he was pleased at Lord Glennie's ruling. He said: "We always felt that it was an unwarranted and severe punishment. The case had been funded by a fighting fund set up by fans following administration.

"However, we don't exactly know what is now available to the tribunal. A financial sanction is obviously preferable as it doesn't affect our ability to compete on the field, but now the issue of expulsions from individual competitions or even from the association have been raised.

"The SFA might be feeling a bit sore, particularly as it has to pay the legal costs, but you would think the attitude of a governing body should be 'how do we best help a member club to continue to play?'.

"Fifa said it would prefer that matters relating to the game were not dealt with by the courts, but through the sporting authorities of the jurisdiction, but we thought the best recourse was through the courts because it was a legal matter."

The club had already tried to have the transfer ban removed by going to the SFA's appeal tribunal, whose members include the judge Lord Carloway, only to have the decision upheld.

The club's counsel, Richard Keen, QC, the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, was able to convince Scotland's highest civil court the punishment was "unlawful".

He said: "We are the victim of an unlawful sanction and we have had imposed on us a sanction that the SFA panel had no right to impose.

"The sanction of suspending the registration of players is not available under the general disciplinary rules to the tribunal in respect of the alleged breach.

"It follows ... that the purported additional sanction imposed by the tribunal and confirmed by the appeal tribunal was not a competent sanction."

Aidan O'Neill, QC, for the SFA, said that

the £100,000 fine was "simply not enough given the gravity of the issues here".

He said that if their powers of penalty were restricted to sanctions such as suspension or expulsion, then suspension would have to be looked at.

Mr O'Neill told the court the paradox was that Mr Keen's argument could lead to greater sanction.

"Suspension would not just simply impose a transfer ban, but would stop any playing of friendly matches in the off-season," he said. "Suspension is a greater sanction than the targeted sanction of the transfer ban that was in fact imposed."

Rangers administrator Duff & Phelps welcomed the decision, adding that it was "regrettable" they had had to take the case to court.

Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "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."

An SFA spokesman said: "We are surprised by today's verdict at the Court of Session, especially since the original sanction against Rangers FC was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an Appellate Tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge.

"We will now consider our position with our legal advisers before making any further comment."

Fifa warned that action must be taken after Rangers' use of the law courts to challenge a registration embargo.

It indicated that any governing body was entitled to "direct action" against a club which sought "redress in front of ordinary court" under its articles of association.

It said the situation should be closely monitored "so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible".

European football's ruling body, Uefa, described it as a "domestic matter", saying: "It's up to the Scottish Football Association to make sure that the regulations and national law are adhered to.

Sandy

[henrik777]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/rangers-administration-club-run-risk-of-new-sanctions-1-2325337

Rangers administration: Club run risk of new sanctions

Rangers were handed a 12-month transfer embargo by the SFA. Picture: TSPL
By ALAN PATTULLO AND JOHN ROBERTSON
Published on Tuesday 29 May 2012 23:47

Rangers won a court fight yesterday against the 12-month transfer ban imposed by a Scottish Football Association discipline tribunal, but the Ibrox club could end up with a worse punishment for bringing the game into disrepute.

The judge, Lord Glennie, decided at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the sanction of a prohibition on registering players was outwith the penalties set down by the SFA’s articles of association and its judicial panel protocol. He therefore ruled that the transfer ban had been outwith the legitimate powers of the discipline tribunal and should not have been affirmed by an appeals tribunal, which was chaired by one of his colleagues, Lord Carloway.

However, the prospect of an own goal by the Ibrox club was raised by Lord Glennie saying that the matter would be sent back to the appeals tribunal for reconsideration.

The explicit punishments stated in the SFA’s rule 66 are a maximum £100,000 fine, suspension or expulsion from participation in the game, ejection from the Scottish Cup or termination of membership. The original judicial panel’s report stated that, in their view, “only match fixing in its various forms might be a more serious breach” than the financial irregularities committed by the Ibrox club. The report revealed that the tribunal had considered suspension of membership of the SFA to be an “appropriately severe punishment”, but had, in the final analysis, deemed it “too severe”.

Lord Glennie’s decision has put the ball back into the SFA’s side of the court, or at least that of an independent judicial panel. He said: “The fact that I find the imposition of the additional sanction to be ultra vires [beyond one’s powers or authority] does not necessarily mean the petitioners (Rangers) will escape to a lighter and ineffective punishment. That is entirely a matter for the appellate tribunal and not this court.”

The SFA released a statement last night expressing “surprise” at Lord Glennie’s decision, which also ruled that the governing body must pay the costs of the case. The governing body was further rocked by Fifa stepping into the saga. World football’s governing body take a dim view of clubs using courts of law to settle football disputes. Fifa have now pointed out that they expect member associations to take “direct action” against clubs who take them to court.

“We are surprised by today’s verdict at the Court of Session, especially since the original sanction against Rangers FC was imposed by an independent panel chaired by a leading QC and upheld by an appellate tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court judge,” said an SFA spokesperson last night. “We will now consider our position with our legal advisers before making any further comment.”

Lord Glennie had been told that the discipline tribunal had turned away from sanctions which were open to it, such as suspension or termination of Rangers’ membership of the SFA, because it felt those would be “too harsh”. A fine of £100,000 had been imposed but, on its own, that had been felt to be too lenient, so the additional sanction of the transfer ban was selected.

The SFA’s counsel, Aidan O’Neill, QC, argued that there must be room in interpreting the 61 pages of disciplinary rules for something between a fine, at the one end, and suspension or termination, at the other, which was proportionate and effective.

Without the “something in between” which had been selected – the transfer ban – the tribunal had said that suspension might have to be thought appropriate for such serious conduct, the court heard.

“Suspension is a greater sanction than the transfer ban which was imposed. Suspension would not just simply impose a transfer ban, but would stop any playing of friendly matches in the off-season,” said Mr O’Neill.

However, Lord Glennie agreed with the interpretation of the rules for which Richard Keen, QC, dean of the Faculty of Advocates, for Rangers, had argued. That was, in effect, that the only sanctions which the tribunal could impose were those listed in the rules for the specific charge, and a transfer ban was quite clearly not on the list.

“We are the victim of an unlawful sanction and we have had imposed on us a sanction that the SFA panel had no right to impose,” said Mr Keen.

Lord Glennie stressed that the only issue before him in the petition for judicial review brought by Rangers was whether the “additional sanction”, the transfer ban, was within the powers of the two tribunals. Lord Glennie was not hearing an appeal and did not have to decide whether the sanctions were too lenient or severe.

Ruling on a preliminary issue, Lord Glennie rejected a submission by the SFA that he was not entitled to hear the case because such matters were reserved for the Swiss-based Court of Arbitration for Sport. He also ruled that the expenses of the case before him should be met by the SFA.

The fact the matter was being heard in a court of law at all has been noted by Fifa, who have warned the SFA that they must now take action against Rangers for seeking recourse in the ordinary courts.

A statement from Fifa read: “At the time of writing we have not received any communication from the Scottish FA.

“In such a case, Fifa will ask the member association to take action so that the club withdraws its request from the ordinary courts.

“Fifa will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible.”

Fifa’s articles of association call for member bodies to take “direct action” against clubs who seek redress over football matters before ordinary courts. Last year the governing body threatened to suspend the Swiss Football Association if it failed to impose strict sanctions on FC Sion, who had been involved in a long-running legal dispute with Uefa after being refused re-entry to the Europa League following a breach of player recruitment rules. Celtic took Sion’s place instead, while the Swiss club were eventually hit with a 36-point suspension.

An SFA source last night expressed a fear that Rangers’ actions could yet rebound on Scottish football as a whole, with Fifa having been prepared to take such extreme action in the case of Switzerland.

However, Rangers administrator Paul Clark hailed yesterday’s events in the Court of Session, saying: “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.”

Sandy

[henrik777]

Tighty must be thanking his lucky stars this forum has run out of Rangers supporters. 

Not much of what has been posted here is incorrect or inflammatory, besides some of them have kind of accepted the situation and just want it over whatever the outcome.

IMO.

Sandy

[Somerled]

Tighty must be thanking his lucky stars this forum has run out of Rangers supporters. 

Not much of what has been posted here is incorrect or inflammatory, besides some of them have kind of accepted the situation and just want it over whatever the outcome.

IMO.

Sandy

Correct. Most Rangers fans in our pub have now accepted the fact that their club has behaved disgracefully and the only sensible option is for them to start again from the bottom of the Scottish league. I feel desperately sorry for the many true Rangers fans out there but their crimes have been so horrendous that a proper punishment needs to be applied.

They still haven't been punished at all for the most serious offence - the secret dual contracts of the EBTs, regardless of what the Tax Case ruling is.

[henrik777]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18261343

30 May 2012 Last updated at 08:21

Scottish football 'faces international ban' over Rangers SFA court challenge

Scottish football could face a ban after Rangers challenged the national associationContinue reading the main story
Rangers in administration


Scottish football could face an international ban after Rangers challenged the SFA's transfer sanctions in the courts, it has been warned.

A judge overturned Rangers' one year transfer ban and a £100,000 fine for bringing the game into disrepute.

The SFA is considering its response, which could mean alternative sanctions.

But sports lawyer Dr Gregory Ioannidis said if further punishment is not imposed for the court challenge, Fifa could ban all Scottish clubs.

The articles of world governing body Fifa and Uefa state that association decisions cannot be challenged in an ordinary court.

Prior to the Court of Session decision on Tuesday, Fifa said it wanted Rangers' request withdrawn from the ordinary courts.

Lord Glennie said the transfer ban should be reconsidered by the SFA appeal panel on the grounds it was not one of the sanctions listed in the association's own regulations.

'Damaging' situation
Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps said the club's position had been vindicated and that they would study the judgement and consider their course of action.




Fifa can penalise both the Scottish association and the individual clubs and the national team of Scotland ”

Dr Gregory Ioannidis
Sport lawyer
The disrepute charge was handed down mainly over the club's failure to pay more than £13m in taxes last season.

The SFA said it was surprised by the Court of Session verdict and would consult its legal advisers. Options it can consider over the disrepute charge include a further fine, suspension from the Scottish Cup and expulsion from the game.

Dr Ioannidis, one of Europe's top experts on sports law, told the BBC's Newsnight Scotland the court challenge could also have wider implications for the game.

He said: "It's going to be damaging for Scottish football.

"If the Scottish Football Association decide not to take action against Rangers in relation to Rangers submitting the application to the Court of Session then Fifa can penalise both the Scottish association and the individual clubs and the national team of Scotland and impose an international ban on all of them."

Dr Ioannidis said Fifa had threatened such bans in the recent past, including in the case of FC Sion, who were thrown out of the Europa League for fielding ineligible players.

The SFA has three weeks to decide on its course of action. A Fifa spokesman said: "Fifa will closely monitor the situation so that the issue is resolved as fast as possible."


Sandy

[henrik777]

http://sport.stv.tv/football/103918-why-rangers-court-win-against-the-sfa-raises-more-questions-than-answers/

Why Rangers' court win against the SFA raises more questions than answers
By Jamie Borthwick 30 May 2012 11:29 BST

The Court of Session ruling has put the Scottish Football Association in a difficult position.



The landmark ruling of the Court of Session in favour of Rangers FC this week left many more questions than answers regarding the constitutional future of punitive measures handed out by the Scottish FA.

Rangers chose to challenge an SFA punishment which placed an embargo on them registering new players over the age of 18 for a period of 12 months, which was handed out after the club was found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by not paying taxes under owner Craig Whyte.

Because this punishment is not specifically laid out in the SFA’s article of association, Rangers argued that it was unlawful.

Fifa laws disallow clubs and individuals within football from taking a national association to ordinary court and recognise the Court of Arbitration for Sport as the highest authority on such disputes.

So why did Rangers not go to CAS? Why did the Court of Session believe it held jurisdiction over the dispute? And what does it mean for the future of the SFA’s Judicial Panel?

Who is responsible for disciplinary matters?
The SFA’s Judicial Panel hands out disciplinary measures against member clubs found to be guilty of rule breaches.

Article 65 of the SFA’s Articles of Association states that a panel will “carry out and enforce disciplinary procedures” as well as appeals against these decisions. Article 65.3(b) specifically states that “the decision of the judicial panel in any appeal shall be final and binding on all parties concerned”.

Can you appeal an appeal?
The SFA does not allow for this. Once the appeal has been heard and a verdict delivered that is expected to be the end of the matter, as per article 65.3(b).

So why didn’t Rangers go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport?
The lawyers acting on behalf of Rangers FC argued that CAS had no jurisdiction over their case. They used the legal case of Ashley Cole versus the FA Premier League in 2005 as precedent for this.

In 2005, Cole was fined £100,000 by the Premier League for meeting with Chelsea to discuss a transfer while he was still under contract to Arsenal. An appeal by Cole reduced the fine to £75,000 but he then took the case to CAS.

The CAS ruling of August 31, 2005, stated that it had no jurisdiction over the dispute because the rules of the Premier League do not contain any reference to a right to appeal to CAS. Premier League rule R63 state that their decision is final and binding – exactly the same wording used in the SFA’s rule 65.3(b).

Lord Glennie at the Court of Session agreed with this argument and ruled that the civil court in Scotland was therefore competent to deal with the dispute between Rangers and the SFA.

Do Fifa expect football associations to direct all appeals to CAS?
Fifa leaves it up to individual national associations to decide who the ultimate appeal board should be. Article 64.3 of the Fifa statutes reads “disputes shall be taken to an independent and duly constituted arbitration tribunal recognised under the rules of the association or confederation or to CAS”.

The SFA chose to make their Judicial Panel the body which hears such disputes and not CAS, which is entirely legitimate under Fifa rules.

So why are Fifa angry?
It is absolutely against Fifa’s statutes to take a dispute with a national association to the court of law. Fifa statute 64.2 states &“recourse to ordinary courts of law is prohibited unless specifically provided for in the Fifa regulations”.

Fifa insist that associations insert a clause in their rules to specifically prohibit such legal actions. The SFA’s is contained in 65.5 and says “the fact of membership of the Scottish FA shall constitute an agreement by a member that it, or any body interested through such member, shall submit all disputes to the jurisdiction of the Judicial Panel and shall not be permitted to take such difference or questions to a court of law”.

Rangers broke this term of their membership by going to the Court of Session and Fifa’s anger stems from the fact that the SFA appears not to have tried to stop it.

What happens now?
The route is now available for members of the SFA to appeal the punishments of the Judicial Panel in a Scottish court of law. Rangers did not seek to overturn the findings of the panel, just the punishment aspect.

However this route still breaches SFA law 65.5 and Fifa statute 64.2 and leaves any member who goes to court open to additional sanctions.

What has changed now is that the SFA no longer has the option of handing down any punishment it sees fit for a member brought on a disrepute charge. It must use the sanctions specifically laid down in article 94.1, “to fine, suspend, expel or eject from the [Scottish] Cup”.

Sandy

[henrik777]

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH%2095.html

"Although the Appellate Tribunal agreed with the Disciplinary Tribunal that termination, suspension of membership would have been excessive, it made that assessment in the context of the availability of competent lesser sanctions such as the one actually imposed. Were that option not to have been available, suspension might have had to be considered appropriate for such serious misconduct, which has brought the game into disrepute."

Sandy

[Rod Paradise]

HMRC reject the CVA offer, Rangers now heading for Liquidation. Green to attempt an asset transfer to a Newco, where they will try to pass the new club off as the same old Rangers. Expecting a blocker to that move as well.

[Micko]

How soon will we start seeing the stars leaving Ibrox?

[outragous76]

If they set up a new company - are all players contracts void and therefore they rely on good will not to walk away, (and therefore no player is an asset?)