Aberdeen Fan Rushes To Rangers Defence Shocker! (Well partially at least)

Okay, I've gorged myself at the bountiful table of schadenfreude at Rangers expense as much as the next non-bluenose, but I don't get how the SFA can pile sanctions on Sevco FC.
"Punishments" were applicable to the soon-to-be-liquidated Rangers FC - the 10 point deduction, the £160K fine, and the 1 year transfer embargo (which was appealed).

As far as I'm concerned as soon as the club / company formerly known as Rangers was liquidated, the capacity for "punishment" was removed.
The 3 year ban from European football is a consequence of liquidation, not a punishment. It's in the rules.
Starting again in Division 3 is also a consequence of liquidation. The club / company that was elected to the SFL is a new entity. The situation got muddled with ridiculous media talk of demotion to the 1st division, when in fact they should have been talking about how Sevco were being granted 2 automatic promotions.

So Sevco should be granted a license to play, and the ability to sign whomsoever they wish, free from the baggage of their former incarnation.
But that maybe doesn't satisfy either side?

The problem with stating that "The club / company that was elected to the SFL is a new entity" is that it's clearly carrying a brand name, history and fan base into the SFL so the baggage is there.

Infact, reading back, Janik made that same point last night. I don't know why even non-Bluenoses don't get it.

To repeat his question, why admit Rangers to SFL3 if they are not infact carrying the benefits of Rangers?

TonTon wrote:


Well, not as such. The court case showed that the SFA rules allowed only three levels of punishment for the infractions committed around the reporting of Whyte's ownership. £100,000 fine, suspension from the SFA or expulsion from the SFA. The transfer ban was not a punishment laid out as an alternative for he tribunal, which is why it got overturned.
Reading between the lines of this report especially the quotes by Green regarding 'reluctantly accepting...if the alternative is no football', I speculate that someone in the SFA has told Rangers that a £100,000 fine is clearly inadequate punishment due tot he gravity of the offence, and if they force the SFA to abide by it's rules then it will have no choice but to suspend Rangers for at least a year. So it may actually be in Rangers interests to accept a punishment that isn't mandated in the rules.

Clearly the transfer embargo was outwith the SFA's rules. Bleating about its being "an illegal punishment" is a childish distortion. And, as you point out, given the sanctions available, it's likely to be best for Rangers to take the embargo.

As far as I can see, that is the only sanction which has been imposed. Rangers fans can be angry about the consequences of their club's actions, putting them out of the SPL and out of European competition. Those aren't punishments.

"Bleating"? Who is fucking bleating?

When a court decides something is unlawful then to most normal people that makes it illegal. It's not a 'childish distortion' it's a statement of fact. It's important for a couple of reasons. Firstly because it once again shows how football still believes itself to be above the law, a thought process that frankly helped get us into this mess and secondly it demonstrates how the governing bodies are making this up as they go along. That's unacceptable, particularly at this late stage in the process. It is not that long ago a leading referee was forced to resign for 'lying' about why he'd made a correct decision on the park, Regan, Doncaster and the rest who run the SPL and SFA have been shown to lie, bully and distort reality for what can only be personal gain on a regular basis. Yet I've still to see the concerted media pressure to get them to resign. Don't tell me I'm making childish distortions, it's arguably the single most important point in this whole sorry mess.

The position Rangers currently find themselves in, demoted down 4 divisions, no first team squad, only 450 season tickets sold and still no licence to play on top of all the other childish distortions I could mention, is surely deterrent for any other club or director thinking of using the PAYE deductions as working capital.
Believe me we've been punished, whether it was imposed from elsewhere or self-inflicted is hardly relevant.

I'll join Max in defending them here. Excelelnt post Max - let them get on with it from here on in.

Maybe we can concentrate now on clearing idiots like Doncaster and Regan from the game to begin giving it some credibility back.

I guess anyone objecting more than once to the same thing can be seen as bleating if one is in a bad enough mood. Sorry for the personal angle there.

(It isn't "an illegal punishment". An illegal punishment would be a punishment that was against the law. Like killing someone, for example. Or cutting off a finger. It was a sanction which the SFA didn't have the power to impose, and therefore its imposition was unlawful. Illegal if you like.

As has been noted, the embargo was imposed because they didn't want to throw Rangers out. Which is why Rangers are going to accept the embargo)

On the contrary, that's totally relevant.

If I decide I want to run someone over in my car, and in the process of doing so I also get badly injured, write off my vehicle and then see £50,000 life savings, which I'd been keeping in my boot, fly out on impact and land in the nearby river, I can't then claim to the judge when I'm in court that I've been punished enough and should be given no jail term for my actions. Just because I've deservedly suffered some nasty consequences doesn't mean I shouldn't also be punished for my law-breaking in the usual way.

I don't understand the point of sevco facing a transfer embargo. They're an entirely different club, with only four players. How are they going to fulfil fixtures if they can't sign players?

The SFL have acted on the principle that this is a new club, and as such needed to start in the third division. This seems like a reasonable enough position to adopt. It seems to have some ground in legal reality, and it is something that everyone can gather around.

The SFA and the SPL seem to have thought that this was still rangers, when even considering whether they should remain in the SPL, or even be given two free promotions. If they want to punish rangers for the shit they did, then take away some trophies or something. You should at least try to punish the entity that did the stuff.

They have to all agree about one way of looking at this or the whole thing is going to end in clearly identifiable and predictable disaster.

The planned embargo won't cover this transfer window, Berba. It's the next two. So they can sign a team for this season and next, but they are stuck with any mistakes made until January 2014.

They are not an entirely different club and they have plenty of players.

TonTon wrote:

Nice one!

Former Scotland Internationalist Craig Beattie(age 28) and former Scotland Hopeful Ian Black(age 27) train with Sevco ahead of a mooted signing. Subject to SFA licence being granted, which is expected to hapen tomorrow.

eturnkeysec3340002378c9.users.site2you.c...fault/active_id/1027


Here you go and it must be true, it's from Di Stefano, that shining beacon of truth and justice.

Interesting stuff though and probably some truth here. But why are they always ‘Top’ Mossad agents? Some of them must be sh*te. Even just a little jaded. But no, always ‘crack’ or ‘elite’. One thing is for sure, CW is a ‘top’ ‘crack’ elite’ fraudster although it would appear he woke up one morning with an elk’s head in his bed with a note saying “pay Dimitri” pinned to it. Unlike most of his other debts, he seems to have coughed up that one.

Well it certainly is an interesting story but leaves further questions to be answered

From the bottom of the page
"Whyte lives in style in Monaco with a leggy blonde a foot taller than him"

How tall is Craig Whyte?

KingsburySaint wrote:


About a foot smaller than Peter Crouch by the sounds of things.

TonTon wrote:


Fair enough, thanks.

Hofzinser wrote:


Hofz that's a terrible analogy. In this case the driver of the car was killed. You want to prosecute the guy who bought the car off his widow.

Something someone mentioned on the last page about Green and his shadowy partners being in charge. It's a fair point and I meant to pick up on it at the time but got sidetracked. It was long rumoured but has now been confirmed that Paul Stretford is "advising" the club. Quite what that means I don't know and it wasn't elaborated on. I'm not sure he'd pass a 'fit and proper person' test currently, if one does actually exist now of course.

Whilst I'd like the SFA to give us a licence to play if they are unhappy with the ownership they need to say something soon and publicly. Likewise even if they are I'd still like to see Green and his partners leave the club.