SFA beaks deliver their verdict on Ferguson. Striker considers appealing against his 12-game ban

conclusion to a long-running saga, the verdict promises to ignite

further acrimonious exchanges involving the club, the SFA, the

footballers' union and the solicitors representing the player.

Immediately after the meeting at the SFA headquarters in Glasgow,

Donald Findlay, QC, vice chairman of Rangers, suggested strongly that

the player would appeal against the decision and added that Ferguson's

solicitor would be certain to consider the possibility of taking legal

action against the disciplinary committee or its members in light of

what might be considered actions prejudicial to an impending court case.

''It has to be said that the SFA were advised from a number of

sources,'' said Findlay, ''not least of which was Rangers Football Club,

of the position this young man found himself in, and they declined to

consider a postponement of this matter until a future date.

''I think they were wrong, I think they have acted unfairly and

contrary to the player's wider interest, remembering the fact that he is

an accused person.''

Ferguson has been charged with assault, and his case has been called

initially for the Sheriff Court in Glasgow next Wednesday. The football

verdict as well as the court appearance relates to an alleged head-butt

on Raith Rovers defender John McStay during the match at Ibrox on April

16.

''What must now happen, and I imagine will happen,'' added Findlay, a

prominent figure in Scottish legal circles, ''is that Duncan Ferguson

and his solicitor will consider the implications with a view to the

court case and will also consider whether there are any legal steps that

may be taken against the SFA as a body or the disciplinary committee who

have acted in this way.''

Findlay, along with Rangers secretary Campbell Ogilvie and Ferguson,

then returned to Ibrox to consider the advisability of an appeal, which

has to be lodged within seven days.

If they do appeal -- and that seems likely -- Ferguson's ban would be

held over until the protest is heard, and that might release him for a

possible appearance in the Tennents Scottish Cup final a week on

Saturday.

The suggestions that McStay and/or Ferguson would not co-operate fully

with the committee turned out to be unfounded. As a consequence, the

suspensions imposed on Raith Rovers and McStay after the failure of the

player to appear at the orginal hearing on Monday were lifted.

McStay was reluctant to take the matter this far, let alone any

further, but as the alleged victim his evidence, allied to that of

referee supervisor Mike Delaney, also at yesterday's hearing, was

crucial.

Later, McStay and his manager, Jimmy Nicholl, rushed away through the

posse of pressmen, photographers and sundry spectators who had gathered

in the sunshine outside Park Gardens some time before the other

participants.

They had been present along with Ferguson and Delaney as the

committee, with SFA chief executive Jim Farry in attendance, held its

own football court. The members, chaired by Yule Craig of St Mirren,

are: Sandy Stables (Aberdeenshire FA), Kevin Kelly (Celtic), Malcolm

Watters (Montrose), Dick Shaw (Southern Counties) and Willie Omand

(Queen's Park).

The decision to go ahead with the hearing clearly upset Scottish

Professional Footballers' Association secretary Tony Higgins, who had

appeared on behalf of both Ferguson and McStay.

''In my estimation common sense has not prevailed,'' he said. ''We

asked for a deferred decision today. Unfortunately, that was denied. We

feel that this whole scenario has been a farce from day one.

''While we recognise that the SFA has the right to impose bans where

appropriate within the game, we feel they did not take appropriate

cognisance of the circumstances that prevail in this instance. The

impending court action should have been taken into consideration.

''We hope to ensure through our own legal advisers that no player,

like either Duncan Ferguson or John McStay, will find himself in the

same situation as today.''

Higgins was reluctant to comment on the extent of the ban as his

association is one of the members of the appeals tribunal.

The players' union man may have a vested interest of sorts, but his

comments made sense.

It does seem astonishing that Scottish football has got itself into

this high-profile mess when a little diplomacy would have avoided all

the media spotlight that, at least to this legal layman, would appear to

be against the best interests of proper justice being administered when

the law officers get around to deliberating the case in court.

It may be that many of those involved in sport feel strongly that the

misdemeanours conducted on the field are best dealt with by sporting

authorities, but the fact is that the legal officers clearly take a

different view.

In that light, it is surely not doing football a favour to have the

alleged misbehaviour of the costliest player in Britain highlighted in

such fashion before he appears in court, apart altogether from the fact

that I would imagine any defence lawyer would make full use of the

massive publicity given to the ban as evidence of prejudice against his

client's chances of a fair trial.

The SFA have every right to rail against vicious behaviour on the park

and, if they find it proven that Ferguson committed the alleged offence,

the punishment is entitled to be severe, although some may feel 12

matches is close to Draconian.

Ferguson, in his time with Dundee United before he joined Rangers for

#4m, was twice suspended and once ordered off, not a particularly

unsavoury record in modern times.

If the supsension is not challenged, he will miss the final two games

of this season, the league match with Dundee at Ibrox tomorrow and the

cup final against Dundee United, as well as 10 domestic matches next

season. He would be eligible for any European tie but, in essence, he

would be out of action for the next four months.

But whether he is or not, the soap opera that this latest headline in

his career has become is likely to run for some time yet. And nobody in

football will come out of it looking good.

* TOTTENHAM'S future as a Premiership side was plunged into doubt

yesterday when the FA charged the club with misconduct. The charges

relate to allegations of financial irregularities breaching Football

League regulations.

In 1990, Swindon Town, newly promoted to Division 1, were relegated to

Division 2 after being found guilty of similar charges. The FA could

take similar action, but a heavy fine is more likely.