The Scottish Football Association have clarified why they issued a fine after Rangers went into administration in February last year, but did not impose the same punishment when Dunfermline Athletic and Hearts suffered the same fate.
The governing body pointed out that the Ibrox club's lawyer asked for a fine to be considered for the breach of Rule 14(g), while the administrators in charge of the other two clubs made cases that financial penalties could harm the chances of successfully exiting the insolvency event.
All three clubs received registration embargos, but Rangers were also fined £50,000 - at the maximum end of the tariff - by the judicial panel.
Both Ally McCoist, the Rangers manager, and Craig Mather, the Ibrox chief executive, called for an explanation when Hearts and Dunfermline escaped a fine. In a statement, the SFA explained that "Rangers were placed into administration following the deliberate non-payment of social taxes, despite - in the evidence provided - having the money to do so when the decision was first taken to withhold the money."
This was not a feature in the Heart of Midlothian or Dunfermline Athletic cases. Contrary to Mr Mather's statement, Rangers' registration embargo was applied in a separate rule breach, Rule 66 - Bringing the Game into Disrepute.
The administrators in the two other cases (Heart of Midlothian and Dunfermline Athletic) submitted that fines would be inappropriate as the clubs effectively had no money and any fine could jeopardise attempts to save the club. Rangers' lawyer, in contrast, specifically asked for the club to be fined in respect of Charge 3, or Rule 14(g). Rangers did not appeal the fine."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article