THE Scottish Football Association has bowed to the Court of Session ruling that the one-year transfer embargo on Rangers was invalid.
Stewart Regan, chief executive of the SFA, announced last night that the association will now refer the matter back to the appellate tribunal that upheld the original sentence imposed for bringing the game into disrepute.
Lord Glennie at the Court of Session on Tuesday accepted a petition from Rangers for a judicial review as he ruled the SFA could only administer the punishments stated in the rule relating to the disrepute charge.
Now the tribunal, under Lord Carloway, must choose from a range of specified punishments: a fine of £100,000, suspension from the Scottish Cup or suspension or termination of the club's SFA membership.
''Details of a new hearing will be confirmed in early course,'' said Regan.
The chief executive, however, said it was ''regrettable'' Rangers had taken the matter to court.
He said: "Football must always operate within the law of the land. None the less, it is regrettable that a member club has sought recourse for a football disciplinary matter through increasingly costly civil court action.
"The right of appeal is now open to the Scottish FA through the Court of Session. However, by so doing, the very principles on which the SFA – and, for that matter, UEFA and FIFA – are founded, namely football disciplinary matters being dealt with within its own jurisdiction, would be fundamentally compromised.
"Therefore, it is our intention to accede to Lord Glennie's request and refer the matter back to the appellate tribunal, which will consider the remaining sanctions open to it.''
Regan reiterated that the sanction of a transfer embargo had been imposed by an independent tribunal chaired by a leading QC, Gary Allan, and upheld by an appellate tribunal chaired by a Supreme Court Judge, Lord Carloway.
"That in itself vindicates the robustness of the judicial panel protocol, which has been questioned in hackneyed comment in certain quarters this week. It should be noted that two vastly experienced Supreme Court Judges, Lord Carloway and Lord Glennie, arrived at diametrically opposed viewpoints on the same issue,'' he said.
In an addendum almost certainly aimed at Rangers, he said : "With our annual general meeting taking place on Wednesday, June 6, it will be appropriate to remind member clubs that by very dint of their membership of the Scottish FA, they accept and abide by the articles of association."
The Ibrox club was also criticised by Kenny Cameron, the chairman of Inverness Caledonian Thistle. "This is an extremely disappointing situation. The Court for Arbitration in Sport was the correct route for Rangers to take. Taking sporting matters to the Court of Session was a serious mistake,'' he said.
FIFA is monitoring the situation and Cameron said: ''The potential repercussions are something we don't need at what is already a difficult time for Scottish football."
The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund want Charles Green to get his "cards on the table" before they encourage supporters to buy season tickets.Duff & Phelps, the administrators, published the company voluntary arrangement on Tuesday but even if that is rejected by creditors, Green's consortium may take over by buying the club's assets.
However, the RFFF is concerned about the lack of detail about how the former Sheffield United chief executive's consortium plan to fund the club. Green has pledged £8.5m but the CVA revealed that £8.3m of that is a loan to be repaid with interest by 2020. In the short term, there is uncertainty around how the club will pay players when they revert to full wages today, having taken cuts of up to 75% since March.
Andy Kerr, a RFFF member, said: ''There are key questions to be asked about finances and investors and there is a direct correlation between the answers to those questions and season tickets. Without assurances and confidence, it will be difficult for us to throw our weight behind asking people to pay their £500 or whatever for season tickets.''
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