After the fun and excitement prompted by the release of the Nimmo Smith Report on Thursday, which found oldco Rangers guilty of “deliberate non-disclosure” and which seems to have been taken by many as an acquittal, various questions arise about where things now go.
Some were prompted by the statement issued by the SPL. It can be read here.
It says, with my comments in bold below the relevant sections:-
The SPL Board appointed the Independent Commission to consider all aspects of the above matter and at no point provided any direction to the Commission on any aspect of the case.
This echoes a comment made by the Commission at paragraph 103 as follows:-
“… we wish to emphasise, that the SPL did not seek the imposition by us of any specific sanction.” (Please note that the emphasis IS in the original document.)
Now the frenzy about the case, reflected in the MSM reports in the papers, on STV and on the BBC, was all about “title stripping” which, we are led to believe was the purpose of these proceedings.
As I have said repeatedly, I think that this campaign has been a triumph by Charles Green. Last year I suggested that the focus on title stripping as the most serious punishment was (a) wrong and (b) something which I think was influenced by Mr Green’s team. It provided something for the Rangers fans, initially sceptical of the “snake oil salesman” ( (c) David Leggat) to rally around. Title stripping, without commensurate fines or orders for compensation, would, from a business point of view, been great for Rangers. The fans would undoubtedly pour through the gates for months, filling Ibrox and away grounds, whilst showing their defiance towards the SPL and SFA. Losing titles in this way would not have cost Rangers a penny.
A fine or “compensation order” could have done so.
The SPL Board notes that the Commission has upheld a number of complaints against Rangers Oldco and that Rangers Oldco has been found to have breached SPL and Scottish FA Rules over an 11-year period in relation to the non-disclosure of financial arrangements involving many of its Players.
A factual and short summary of the outcome, which has the added advantage of being correct!
The SPL Board are assured by the integrity of the process followed and thank The Rt Hon Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues, Nicholas Stewart QC and Charles Flint QC, for their time and effort.
The Board wishes to give the detail of the decision further consideration at its next meeting.
This last line is the one which raised some queries.
One question was whether the Commission verdict was binding upon the APL, or could it simply ignore it?
The second was whether the SPL could seek to appeal against the decision.
I address both points below the line beneath.
—————————————————–
Can the SPL Ignore the Commission Decision?
No.
Next question please!
OK – I will give a wee bit more of a reply.
Section G of the SPL Rules covers disciplinary commissions. This commission was appointed by the SPL Board to deal with the matter on its behalf. Effectively it had the powers of the Board, but was left to act independently.
This is a vast improvement on the old methods of football discipline, where the decisions were made by committees staffed by people from the SFA/SPL. This became clearly unsatisfactory as the years passed, so the Independent Commission idea was adopted.
Rule G4 states:-
A Commission shall comprise not less than three members of the Panel and any decision of a majority of them, subject to the rights of appeal in Rules G8, G9 and G10, shall be final and binding.
I will deal with G8-10 below. But this Rule answers the question – the SPL Board cannot ignore the verdict. It is as binding on the SPL as it is on oldco.
So, notwithstanding the concern some apparently all Rangers fans have about the SPL Board, it cannot de-rail the Commission decision.
Can the SPL Appeal?
What could the SPL appeal against? After all, Rangers (oldco) was found guilty.
Well, it could, one thinks, appeal against the decision that despite the deliberate non-disclosure there was no playing of ineligible players. But it cannot.
Mr McKenzie, who presented the SPL case, did not invite the Commission to find that ineligible players were fielded. Therefore, if he did not ask the Commission to make such a finding, then the SPL cannot appeal against that decision.
As, other than that, the verdict was guilty on all charges, then the SPL does not have anything against which to appeal.
Could the SPL appeal the sentence passed?
In the Scottish criminal justice system for many years the prosecution had no right of appeal against sentence. The logic was that, once the verdict was passed, the prosecution had no further role. It was not for the prosecution, for example, to invite the court to choose a particular sentence.
That has now changed. The Crown can appeal against sentences which are claimed to be unduly lenient. In sentencing the Crown will invite the judge to impose additional orders upon the guilty person.
So, logically, there should be no reason why the SPL Board could not decide to appeal on the basis that the sentence was too lenient. They will not do so. There are a couple of reasons for saying this.
First of all, I suspect that the SPL want shot of the whole mess. The prospect of re-opening the wounds will not appeal to them, especially if they are looking to move on and build bridges.
Secondly, based on the reasoning of the Commission, I see no grounds for saying that the sentence is too light. Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues seem to have got matters spot on, taking account of the factors they stated as forming the basis for the decision.
Thirdly, can the SPL actually appeal?
The rules regarding appeals to the SFA are in Rules G8, G9 and G10. They state:-
G8 Any Club or person who or which is the subject of an adverse determination by the Board or a Commission may, unless the Rules expressly state otherwise and provided the SFA Articles provide for a right of appeal to the SFA, appeal against such determination in accordance with the SFA Articles.
G9 The procedures for lodging an appeal with the SFA and the powers of the SFA in relation to such appeals shall be as set out in the SFA Articles.
G10 Where a right of appeal is validly exercised to the SFA the Board or, as the case may be, a Commission, shall provide the appellant and the SFA with written reasons for the decision appealed against.
Now I do not see what in Rule G8 gives the SPL a right to appeal against a sentence it thinks is unduly lenient. The SPL “won” a conviction. It has not been “subject of an adverse determination” as might have been argued if there had been an acquittal.
However Mr Regan of the SFA seems to think there is a right of appeal. The BBC quoted him as saying:-
“The report is subject to appeal from both sides and, as the appellate body, it’s not really up to the Scottish FA to be passing any comment on the sanction at this stage.”
It seems a trifle odd if the CEO of the SFA was to be wrong regarding rights of appeal. I am sure therefore that I am missing something. However, I cannot read Rule G8 as giving the SPL a right of appeal.
What if the Upper Tribunal Overturns the FTT Verdict?
A sensible question arising from the Commission decision is as follows.
The Commission based part of its reasoning upon the findings in fact and law of the FTT. What would happen if the Upper Tribunal reversed the FTT verdict?
The answer is simple.
Nothing.
I say that because of a concession made by Mr McKenzie for the SPL at the hearing before the Commission.
Paragraph 104 of the determination includes the following statement:-
The Tax Tribunal has held (subject to appeal) that Oldco was acting within the law in setting up and operating the EBT scheme. The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC. Accordingly we proceed on the basis that the EBT arrangements were lawful.
So, if the Upper Tribunal decides that the FTT majority got it wrong, it will not affect this case. Mr McKenzie has made clear that the Commission decision is based on the case as it stood following the FTT.
A damning verdict at any appeal, if there ever was such an outcome, would not affect this case. The SPL has decided, even though an appeal is pending, to stick with what is present at this point.
Conclusion
What have we learned?
The verdict is binding on the SPL.
They appear to have very little or no chance of appealing and even less willingness to do so.
A favourable verdict in the Upper will be as naught. They have conceded that point.
All this leads me to believe that there will be no more proceedings in this matter.
Posted by Paul McConville
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville 
Chucky blags again, hope to see some comments today regarding the interim accounts……..http://www.iii.co.uk/markets/?type=aimnews&articleid=8894368&action=article
That cant be right. According to Traynor and Ecojon, we only raised £10m from the IPO. As for the £21m cash at bank, must be wrong !
And don’t forget MAd Phil also pitched in on the theory we only made £10 million…but he went further by quoting “accountants I know in the city” saying that Rangers must only have £400k left and that is why we couldn’t pay the guy in Singapore the spookily similar figure of £400k
Sorry, but that cant be true. mick says the bloggers are always right.
Mick is a T-800 series terminator and his data feed consists of old tapes from a ZX Spectrum.
He is corrupted throughout, due to massive viral LNS infection and big white trojan horses going tonto on his hard drive.
The amount of work required to get him up and running properly, classes him as an uneconomical repair.
He is now redundant and needs taken back to base, as a labour of love project.
The next time he engages you Adam,,just say, hasta la vista,baby.
I’ll be back.
£9.5 revenues include season ticket sales of say £7.5m so other revenues have totalled £2m in 7 months. With zero season ticket sales for the remaining 5 months and projecting current operating income and expenses, Sevco cash reserves will have dwindled to under £11m by the end of the 12 month period. Extrapolating this out a further 12 months, with additional income of £3.5m from Sports Direct, Puma, Blackthorn etc will see Sevco back in the red with a negative £3m cash position and liquidated again!
“Gate receipts and other match day revenue are recognised as the games are played”
The vast majority of ticket revenue is season books.
That has already been spent.
Ticket sales revenue and other monies on match days bring in pennies by comparison.
Rangers may not be ready for another administration event just yet, but unless huge sums of monies are injected into the club by yet another sugar daddy, real or imagined, they will continue as a weak, struggling, middle of the road club for the foreseeable future.
That’s if they can somehow avoid insolvency.
Even if they somehow miraculously claw their way back to the SPL, how will they cope in that league without the beneficial effects of EBT’s or other tax avoidance wheezes?
Of course its possible they don’t intend to.
I thought we were to have been in administration again by last November.
When is it happening now?
Patience, patience.
Rule Britannia, Britannia waves the rules…
Good man Jim,my efforts at converting you are bearing fruit.
Jim Bhoy! that,s a Cracker!
As for the blog, I agree there will be no appeal. The correct decision has been made.
The honest admin error decision?
I agree as well. There will be no appeal. The SPL got the decision that they were looking for: guilty as charged with no deliverable sentence.
Load of Malarkey is right. The SFA/SPL have been intimidated into submission. So while wanting to be “seen to be doing something” about 11 years of Rangers deliberately withholding material information, and thereby (as EVERYONE involved in football knows) gaining a financial advantage, the SFA moves the goal posts in regard to player registrations, and they got what they wanted – GUILTY but effectively no punishment. Time to sweep the disgrace and the stench under the carpet.
So what in summary have been the punishments for the worst sporting scandal in football history? A 10 point deduction and a signing ban that only came into effect after players were signed? Risible. Only In Scotland!
The convenient decision has been made.
There is of course the possibility of the SPL refiling different charges. Para [56] of LNS Commission’s ruling – SPL Rule D10.2.3 (in effect prior to 23 May 2005) provides that “Any Club failing to detail a Player’s full financial entitlement in the Contract of Service shall be dealt with as the Board [of the SPL] may decide.” It seems to me that this can be looked at separately from whether or not the registration of such a player is valid or not, and that the SPL Board could still revisit this issue, if it had the will to do so.
Para [85] – it is clear that the SPL messed up in preparing the Notice of Commission i.e. the charges that Rangers were facing, in not detailing pre-23 May 2005 instances correctly. Therefore the Commission could not consider those charges in relation to the eligibility of players prior to that point. I suspect that the SPL could refile those charges if they wished,
Having said that the chances of the SPL having the will to do so are nil.
mot
Absolutely nil.
“What does ‘financial fair play’ really mean? UEFA’s explanation, in 2010, was that the concept would require clubs to balance their books over the medium term, not spend more than they earn, and operate within their financial means.
This is all seen as important for one key reason: because any club that is spending more on players than they can afford, is automatically gaining a sporting advantage over every other club it competes with. Whether the precise system of measurement used by UEFA is perfect is a moot point. But the logic behind the principle however is, I think, broadly sound. And it is this same principle that explains the position of the SPL.
To turn a blind eye, to allow clubs to continually fail to make prompt payments as they fall due, would be to allow those clubs to gain an unfair sporting advantage over all those other clubs that pay their players, the taxman and other clubs on time.”
Any club spending what it cannot afford is automatically gaining a sporting advantage.
To allow clubs to continually fail to make prompt payments gives an unfair advantage over all clubs that do.
However, Mr Doncaster and his members clubs appear not to feel that the present rules contain enough provisions to prevent the above offences.
search paul’s blog for – financial fair play –
and the uefa definition is there
going by uefa’s interpretation [not bryson’s]
rangers – the dead rangers, did in fact CHEAT !
Perhaps.
But (1) UEFA do not intend to do anything and have never intended to do anything about the Rangers case, no matter the thousands of pleading e-mail which they have received;
2) Rangers are not dead, but are the same club as was founded in 1872. Unfortunately.
“What does ‘financial fair play’ really mean?’
It means it’s not fair if your billionaire owner pumps money into the teams transfer budget that doesn’t mirror the ammount of income the team actually generates, but that it’s ok if your owner(s) are not billionaires and they pump taxpayers money in instead………………………….or words to that effect.
Ps, for ‘not a billionaire’ read, potless chancer.
Paul,
I had been thinking along the same lines on the question of whether the SPL could appeal, given the terms of G8.
I wonder though if the SFA’s overarching appeal procedure might give them at least a procedural basis for doing so:
(From SFA Articles)
“133.1 A player, official, referee, club, league or association has the right to appeal to the Appeals Committee against a decision of a club or any recognised football body which is imposed upon such person or body, provided that the appellant has exhausted such appeals proceedings as were available to the appellant consequent to the decision in question, unless a satisfactory reason is given for not having done so, and provided that the appeal to the Appeals Committee is not excluded in terms of Article 66…”
I suppose that would turn on whether the Commission was a recognised football body, and if so, if it is such a boday which is regarded as separate to the SPL itself.
As you say though, the greater problem would be the concessions made by the SPL before the Commission in any event.
That covers decisions imposed against the league.
There has been no decision imposed on the SPL….so nothing to appeal against.
Yes, thats why I was musing on whether the commission is a separate recognised football body to the SPL.
If it was, I wonder if it could be argued that since the SPL are bound by the Commission’s decision (by the SPL’s own rules), the decision was “imposed on” them. I would see “imposed on” as different to, say, “adverse to,” so I’m not sure if they’d need to show much more than that the decision was made by another body, and was binding on them.
The above might well be wrong – it’s certainly a stretch – but I’m just a bit bemused by Regan’s confident assertion of the right to appeal.
As Adam says, maybe Regan is just wrong though!
With regards to Regans statement about appeal, could it not be just another example of a clueless SFA administrator ?
That’s what my money would be on.
Don’t forget this is the same Regan who also rushed headlong into declaring an investigation into “dual contracts”, only to be politely reminded that as the appellant body he couldn’t really have another investigation and should really stop.
You guys are still blinded by this only being about the gruesome twosome. For the SPL, and more importantly the SFA, it means that there is a new precedent and that registration/contract transgressions can not automatically lead to null and void results as has been the case to date.
Irrelevant to you but interesting for the rest of us.
Excellent analysis in http://broganrogantrevinoandhogan.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/lord-nimmo-smith-and-the-hare-and-the-tortoise/#comments
Another blogger who feels able to take apart LNS and his decision.
Im sure he knows far more that LNS on the pertinent facts.
I also see he spends a large amount of tie on Mr Bryson’s evidence and wonders why it was accepted at face value…..this seems to be coming up often on Sellick bloggs…….yet like all those other Sellick blioggs he conveniently ignores that mr McKenzie accepted the evidence of Bryson and lead no contrary point of view.
Now why would this be so consistently ignored on Sellick websites?
How queer
The said blogger’s analysis doesnt surprise at all. The iconic image that shows up with his name bears a striking similarity to one of ‘the blanket men’-
The iconic mage that shows up with your name is a ‘little green monster’ with what looks like a chimney sweep brush for hair. Your comments do not surprise me at all
@Antonious F
LOL 🙂
btw I love your little Christmas tree,bat winged angel image.
Actually it is a piece of modern art– a black and white drawing which if you look closely is made up of a blonde woman, a football and various other things which might be on a man’s mind— but the print here is so small that you can’t see that. It resembles a young Leonard Cohen or Bryan Ferry perhaps.
“The SPL Board are assured by the integrity of the process followed and thank The Rt Hon Lord Nimmo Smith and his colleagues, Nicholas Stewart QC and Charles Flint QC, for their time and effort.”
“…any decision of a majority of them, subject to the rights of appeal … shall be final and binding.”
This decision, whilst taken with integrity I have no doubt, has flaws. Although this Commission is over, the subject may have further to run.
No appeal, party over(it was a belter),move along.
Raygun and Doncaster,that Laurel and Hardy tribute have lifted the rug and told the Coyote to use the brush.
Nothing on this earth will change the Celtic fans’ opinion that Rangers are cheats and an instrument of Satan.
I can function with that.Some folk think i’m nuts,,,hey ho.
There are far more important issues to be studied,,,,Rangers seem to have mislaid £7million and Cardinal O Brien’s belated confession has left the Catholic church in tatters.
I take no pleasure in seeing another human being suffer mental anguish(well apart from Lenny in the dugout) and whatever transgressions took place were between adults.If children were involved,i would become wrath.
Mr O Brien spent his life in the service of God, and although his flesh was weak,hopefully the big guy can forgive him his sins.
His successor has a big job on his hands and hopefully it is the hand of God, and not of flawed men that win the day inside the Vatican.
Now c’mon Chico, where’s that £7million?
@Cam Isn’t that the £7m, with the other company that owns the company that owns the club…
Looks like old sticklebricks has ran out of his meds again.. facing the wrath of the rangers fans denouncing the ‘enemy within’ last week he now sees that he had maybe the wrong tactic akin to the chico snake oil salesman days.. Back onto Lawell running the world theory.. pip pip..
Big Pedro’s day in the sun is over.
He wasn’t a popular guy when the Tic were struggling to keep pace with a mediocre Gers team under Walter.
The Rangers fiasco over the last 18 months has taken the spotlight off him.
Next season when Lenny’s reduced team get horsed,will lift the anaglypta off the cracked walls.
He will be begging Chico for an Old Firm bounce game or be selling 30,000 green seats at a car booty.
Do you mean a New Firm bounce game? The Old Firm played their last Ever game on 29th April 2012,when the Old Rangers were horsed 3-0, a couple of months before they went down the Plug ,ole! Remember! I DO! In fact I will NEVER FORGET!
I do feel a little sorry for Oldco on the EBT issue given that it was Murray who brought the scheme to Rangers, and indeed millionaire Murray was the main beneficiary of the scheme. We know that Murray had a cavalier approach to business (perhaps a trait inherited from his father who was jailed for fraud), but he has killed Rangers and his tin-shed companies are disintegrating under a mountain of debt. Maybe it is time for us to leave the new Rangers to rebuild their reputation based on rigorous financial probity and adherence to the spirit as well as the letter of the football regulations. I am confident they have the right man to spearhead that recovery in Mr Charles (big hands, I love cash , 500m supporters) Green.
venerable
Adjective
Accorded a great deal of respect, esp. because of age, wisdom, or character: “a venerable statesman”.
———————————————————————-
In relation to today’s published unaudited accounts; Charles Green said: ‘This has been a significant period in the club’s history, in which vital steps were taken to ensure the survival and rebuilding of one of the UK’s most venerable football institutions.”
RFC may well have been a venerable institution; newco have someway to go to earn any of the above attributes.
The fact that newco has yet to produce its first audited accounts, it could be said that Mr. Green is ‘vulnerable’ to accusation that his club has yet to merit such high regard as bestowed by him.
It could also be said that the reinvention of rangers is more akin to the rehabilitation of a degenerate whom is some way off from redemption.
Meanwhile the SFA ‘social workers’ whom police the actions of the reprobate club have asked that a line is now drawn in the sand; and it is now time to move forward.
I would suggest that SFA/SPL officers in charge may be more deserving of an ASBO for their shameful handling of matters; which has allowed an individual club to lord it over the rest with impunity.
@Raymilland
I see that you have a very well thumbed dictionary Ray, and that
you utilise it wisely for our elucidation.
Gonae gie a lenae it tae Sally so he can learn the difference
between consequences and punishment and between guilty ( of
all charges ) and vindication. You def don’t need it any more Ray 🙂
@Maggie
sally
Noun
A sudden charge out of a besieged place against the enemy; a sortie.
Verb
Make a military sortie: “they sallied out to harass the enemy”.
Synonyms
sortie
————————————————————————
During the next skirmish; I shall launch my weighty tome over the parapet of Castle Grayskull; hopefully scoring a direct hit.
@Raymilland
A sudden charge out of a besieged place…..does that constitute
walking away ? 🙂
Before you launch that dictionary over the wall could you
just confirm for me that “sortie” is from the archaic French,
don’t want Chico getting confused.
Could there have been an Appeal? Of course there could! Sevco had their appeal at the ready, against the SENTENCE! Because like everyone else. they KNEW They Were GUILTY of the CHARGE!
Paul
On the SPL rules and any right to appeal :-
“G8 – Any Club or person who or which is the subject of an adverse determination by the Board or a Commission may…”
Could it be argued that the SPL is the member clubs and as such they would each have the right to appeal, either individually or as a group?
Could the definition of adverse determination be extended to address concerns over the evidence presented to the Commission?
What mechanism (if any) is there to revisit a determination, should there be any doubts over the veracity of evidence from, say, a key expert witness?
It will be now open season on the SFA, and claims will be pursued for losses
the second place fund must be handed over to the BDO as old co where entitled to have this money the embargo will still stay as the rules broke will cover this punishment the points removed still did not alter the league position so they have a case to recoup this money and should this money be with held it would be wrong of the sfa as they are only entitled to 6p in the pound from the £250,000 fine what the SFA are to get is £15,000 from this fine
Paul,
Can you please confirm -though I think you might need a seperate blog- in your opinion who’s incompetence was the reason for this travesty.
From what I’ve read we’re looking at the SPL, Bryson and possibly Mr McKenzie.
Should Mr McKenzie have challenged the evidence about eligibility?
I realise Mr Bryson’s testimony was a smoking gun but was the SPL’s case that flimsy or was it the collective actions of all three which determined the end result.
I may be wrong about Mr McKenzie but I supsect since he was presenting the case on behalf of the SPL then it seems he didn’t do his homework or was he only allowed to work with the evidence provided?
some would call it cahoots
Binding or not, there is no way the SPL will contest Nimmo-Smith’s ruling.
They want to get back to business as usual.
However.
Although the rules are the rules, the SPL and SFA have conveniently ignored them when those rules prove to be inconvenient.
Declaration of all monies paid to players.
Conditions for granting licence to play in SPL and in European competitions.
As you have pointed out over the last year or two these rules and many more have had a horse and cart driven through them.
If the SPL was determined to challenge the Nimmo-Smith findings, I don’t see what could stop them.
The could just ignore the verdict.
A precedent has sure been set over and over by HM government who routinely set up parliamentary inquiries into public scandals, and when the report is published, usually after the heat has died down, they often rubbish or totally ignore it.
the SPL will not now appeal any decision from the LNS inquiry , Mr Lawell and Mr Thomson of the board, feel there clubs and others will loose out to much in terms of money, as we all know times are hard, and every penny is a prisoner and we all are struggling, they long for the return of rangers and there supports to the fold but should anything like this ever happen again they will fight it vigorously, provided the get the support from the SFA once more and the fans, they thank the fans for there support, through these testing times.
Pingback: Where do we go from here? | anunlevelplayingfield
Further to Right of Appeal, in addition to points in your blog there is a time limit as specified in SPL Rules and SFA Articles
Appeal Decision of SPl Commission
SPL Rules
G9
The procedures for lodging an appeal with the SFA and the powers of the SFA in relation to such appeals shall be as set out in the SFA Articles.
SFA Article
133.1.1
Procedures for Lodging an Appeal
An appeal from a player, official, referee, club, league or association must be dispatched by recorded delivery letter to the Secretary within 7 days after the date of the meeting at which the decision appealed against was taken unless for any reason it was not made known to the appellant at such meeting, in which case it must be dispatched by recorded delivery letter to the Secretary within 7 days after the date on which the decision was intimated by recorded delivery letter to
the person or body concerned. A deposit shall be lodged with each appeal. In the case of a player or referee this shall be £50, (which shall also apply in the event of a player’s club lodging an appeal on the player’s behalf), and in the case of any other appellant it shall be £100. At the Appeals Committee’s discretion, the deposit will be forfeited if the appeal is dismissed.
Cam, you’re a dick pal.
Great deflection….nearly
We’re discussing whether rangers cheated Scottish football over (at least) an 11 year period, & there is an outcome & views that should be discussed.
During this, you decide to bring in issues regarding the catholic faith as some form of counter arguement.
As far as this blog is concerned, I’m not interested in the issues surrounding cardinal o’brien, however I would like to discuss why a club who have been found guilty of charges presented to them, feel they have been vindicated in some form, want some form of apology from Scottish football & state it was eveyone else’s fault, not theirs.
When Paul wants to discuss the issues within the catholic church, I’m sure he’ll post a blog to discuss it…….meanwhile let’s deal with the subject in question eh.
Typical hun by the way, using religion to disguise their clubs shortcomings.
Sound familiiar??
The route for any aggrieved party is to the SFA and then UEFA and then the CAS. Unfortunately the aggrieved parties are set ou as, ‘ a player, official, referee, club, league or association’, which doesn’t include fans.
I wonder if there is scope for a civil action against the administration of Scottish Football, by fans aggrieved that the integrity of the sport is undermined by their actions?
just got this exclusive footage of Charles Greens reaction to the news that the EPL said no to Rangers…