Patterson, Zungu, Bassey, Mebude and Kinnear - Appeals dismissed, original bans stand - Rangers' reaction to appeal decision in the OP

Valley Bluenose said:
Gerrard was hoping for a verdict this morning. We've achieved our goal, Tav is back. If we are honest that was what it was mostly about. I expect the Appeal to fail and the 6 game suspension (with 2 suspended) to kick in from today.
Click to expand...
Yeah, not expecting anything wildly different, but the length of time the entire process has taken is testament to the level at which the SPFL operates.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Yeah, not expecting anything wildly different, but the length of time the entire process has taken is testament to the level at which the SPFL operates.
Click to expand...
I think I posted what I believe happened earlier in the thread.

It should be borne in mind that a full month of the delay is down to the Appeal being submitted. The JPP has a timeline for dealing with Appeals of this nature (non-fast track). All sides have to agree on the make-up of the Appeal Panel. There has to be a period for the submission of any new evidence. All sides have to agree on a date and it has to be at 1 week's notice etc. Nobody else previously charged has submitted an Appeal.

The debatable delay was at the start of the process and, again, I would put that down to Rangers. It appears we asked for time to conduct our own internal investigation before the SFA took over and raised any charges. It would seem, from the outside, that we dragged that process out a bit - which has worked to our benefit.

In short, we played the system - as many clubs have done before and will do again - and I'm pleased that we did ultimately. Just have to make sure Tav doesn't suffer another injury over the next 4 games.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I think I posted what I believe happened earlier in the thread.

It should be borne in mind that a full month of the delay is down to the Appeal being submitted. The JPP has a timeline for dealing with Appeals of this nature (non-fast track). All sides have to agree on the make-up of the Appeal Panel. There has to be a period for the submission of any new evidence. All sides have to agree on a date and it has to be at 1 week's notice etc. Nobody else previously charged has submitted an Appeal.

The debatable delay was at the start of the process and, again, I would put that down to Rangers. It appears we asked for time to conduct our own internal investigation before the SFA took over and raised any charges. It would seem, from the outside, that we dragged that process out a bit - which has worked to our benefit.

In short, we played the system - as many clubs have done before and will do again - and I'm pleased that we did ultimately. Just have to make sure Tav doesn't suffer another injury over the next 4 games.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we did well out of it and no mistake. Does not change the fact that the system is a joke and things like this should not have gaping loopholes.
 
Slipster said:
Seriously though, imagine there was still something to be won , the utter chaos these fud's at the SFA are causing... it's really is the most amateurish organisation, that we have the misfortune of 'running' our game.

'Off with their heads' !
Click to expand...
It's the individual's who have been allowed to infiltrate said organisation unopposed who are the real problem.

People with extremely dubious credentials who couldn't spell the word impartial and lack the backbone to control the screaming hoards.

Lessons here for all of us.
 
Northampton_Loyalist said:
Yeah, we did well out of it and no mistake. Does not change the fact that the system is a joke and things like this should not have gaping loopholes.
Click to expand...
The biggest issue here is why is Scotland the only country I'm aware of that takes such a draconian approach to these, very common, breaches by football players. Nobody wants to tackle that one though.
 
Katic's gonna get ye said:
What exactly is it they think the SFA are helping us to do by delaying the ban? Win the league?
Click to expand...
Seems they're already deathy scared of what Patterson offers us, thankfully the Skipper is back so any deranged argument would fail anyway if Nathan is banned.
Hopefully Turnbull gets his ban just before the next Old Firm game just to twist the knife further :))
 
Mackania said:
It absolutely wasn't about that. It was about the disparity between the punishments handed out to other clubs vs ourselves!
Click to expand...
I'd agree what you say was a part of it - but only a small part. Our primary argument was centred on them being at a gathering of teammates and partners in a private residence as opposed to in bars or restaurants or house parties. Basically we were arguing there was a small element of mitigation. Setting aside Dubai and the complete lack of action, if you look at the punishments dished out over the course of the season there was a clear progression in the severity of the punishments dished out, culminating in Jones and Edmundson. That's what tends to happen when punishments are dished out as a supposed deterrent.

We played the system. No shame in that. As I later posted, the bigger question is why is this only happening in Scotland.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I'd agree what you say was a part of it - but only a small part. Our primary argument was centred on them being at a gathering of teammates and partners in a private residence as opposed to in bars or restaurants or house parties. Basically we were arguing there was a small element of mitigation. Setting aside Dubai and the complete lack of action, if you look at the punishments dished out over the course of the season there was a clear progression in the severity of the punishments dished out, culminating in Jones and Edmundson. That's what tends to happen when punishments are dished out as a supposed deterrent.

We played the system. No shame in that. As I later posted, the bigger question is why is this only happening in Scotland.
Click to expand...
Selectarianism is the answer my friend.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I'd agree what you say was a part of it - but only a small part. Our primary argument was centred on them being at a gathering of teammates and partners in a private residence as opposed to in bars or restaurants or house parties. Basically we were arguing there was a small element of mitigation. Setting aside Dubai and the complete lack of action, if you look at the punishments dished out over the course of the season there was a clear progression in the severity of the punishments dished out, culminating in Jones and Edmundson. That's what tends to happen when punishments are dished out as a supposed deterrent.

We played the system. No shame in that. As I later posted, the bigger question is why is this only happening in Scotland.
Click to expand...
Not this shit again. So every breach should have an escalating punishment? Some poor fucker from Arbroath that has been suffering mentally for the past year nips into his Mums house and cops a twenty game ban in May?

The truth is that they punish Rangers heavier than any other club and have done for years on the say so of every place man that has been sat by Lawell and Desmond. Make no mistake that this is entirely about fighting against that and nothing more.

You brush over the lack of action taken against the control breaches in Dubai but that is front and centre here. We are fighting the unfair measures we are continuously faced with by the powers that be.

Remember that after we had appealed we were still favouring Balogun at right back in some matches. This is about way more than our team sheet in some games.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
The biggest issue here is why is Scotland the only country I'm aware of that takes such a draconian approach to these, very common, breaches by football players. Nobody wants to tackle that one though.
Click to expand...
I think there's a strong chance that the delay in the outcome of the appeal is due to Rangers confronting the SFA with a threat of litigation on the grounds that scum fc received zero sanctions for their proven, and worse breaches in Dubai.
 
ibroxcats said:
I think there's a strong chance that the delay in the outcome of the appeal is due to Rangers confronting the SFA with a threat of litigation on the grounds that scum fc received zero sanctions for their proven, and worse breaches in Dubai.
Click to expand...
I hope so. It should be a well we will see you in court response from us for any ban on the basis that they are being selective.
There is also the fact that it's the club getting punished for an off the field / out of work situation. I hope we have grown a massive set of balls for once.
 
Mackania said:
Not this shit again. So every breach should have an escalating punishment? Some poor fucker from Arbroath that has been suffering mentally for the past year nips into his Mums house and cops a twenty game ban in May?

The truth is that they punish Rangers heavier than any other club and have done for years on the say so of every place man that has been sat by Lawell and Desmond. Make no mistake that this is entirely about fighting against that and nothing more.

You brush over the lack of action taken against the control breaches in Dubai but that is front and centre here. We are fighting the unfair measures we are continuously faced with by the powers that be.

Remember that after we had appealed we were still favouring Balogun at right back in some matches. This is about way more than our team sheet in some games.
Click to expand...
I think you are in danger here of thinking what you want us to do on this matter is what is actually happening.

I don't contest anything you say regards disproportionate action against us over the years. However, I don't think Rangers have 'gone to war' - to coin a FF phrase - in the way that you would hope over this particular incident. We will have highlighted the differences in circumstance between the Jones/Edmundson incident and the Rangers 5 incident. We will, no doubt, have mentioned the lack of action over Dubai and will have received some sort of laughable explanation from the SFA - but that's about it.

This Appeal won't be about a battle to the death in the trenches. Nothing coming out of Rangers suggests that. There's been no outrage or anger, merely measured comments to the effect that this incident was different to others, in particular the Jones/Edmundson one. Right from the start Gerrard has called the players out for their actions. It showed a lack of respect for both him and the Club. He has accepted that they will be banned and hasn't at any point suggested they shouldn't be. It simply isn't the battle you want it to be.

If we get the bans reduced on those grounds then great. I don't expect it though and I don't expect outrage from Rangers if they aren't. Just more measured comments along the lines 'we think the punishments are on the harsh side in comparison to others'.

Maybe I will end up with egg on my face and we will, as others have suggested, challenge them further with a 'see you in Court'. I will eat my hat if that happens though. It's only my opinion at the end of the day.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I think you are in danger here of thinking what you want us to do on this matter is what is actually happening.

I don't contest anything you say regards disproportionate action against us over the years. However, I don't think Rangers have 'gone to war' - to coin a FF phrase - in the way that you would hope over this particular incident. We will have highlighted the differences in circumstance between the Jones/Edmundson incident and the Rangers 5 incident. We will, no doubt, have mentioned the lack of action over Dubai and will have received some sort of laughable explanation from the SFA - but that's about it.

This Appeal won't be about a battle to the death in the trenches. Nothing coming out of Rangers suggests that. There's been no outrage or anger, merely measured comments to the effect that this incident was different to others, in particular the Jones/Edmundson one. Right from the start Gerrard has called the players out for their actions. It showed a lack of respect for both him and the Club. He has accepted that they will be banned and hasn't at any point suggested they shouldn't be. It simply isn't the battle you want it to be.

If we get the bans reduced on those grounds then great. I don't expect it though and I don't expect outrage from Rangers if they aren't. Just more measured comments along the lines 'we think the punishments are on the harsh side in comparison to others'.

Maybe I will end up with egg on my face and we will, as others have suggested, challenge them further with a 'see you in Court'. I will eat my hat if that happens though. It's only my opinion at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
I think you're agreeing with me here, largely. I contested your initial point that this was playing a system to allow us to have players available for games of our choosing. Then your secondary one that it's fine for there to be escalating punishments because some of our players haven't learned from other player's lessons!

I am not expecting Rangers to raze the place hysterically screaming about injustice. I'm expecting us to act in a professional and measured manner and highlight the discrepancy between the way we are treated and everyone else is.

That we don't hear any public soundbites is just Gerrard being coy after previous incidents where he has been fined for speaking his mind and its caused more of a stir. He's already been asked about Dubai and had a snappy response that suggests it's exactly the angle they're playing behind the scenes.
 
baselbear said:
Ha! Dominic MacKay has just started this week and , surprise surprise , it turns out he is a mason there to run Celtic poorly so that The Rangers survive. The poor lambs. They just can't catch a break. They keep employing the wrong type of Catholic.
Click to expand...
Uneducated classless scum. The pictures on the faces of a couple of extended family members when I told them Italy, France and Spain had multiple Masonic Temples was hilarious.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I think you are in danger here of thinking what you want us to do on this matter is what is actually happening.

I don't contest anything you say regards disproportionate action against us over the years. However, I don't think Rangers have 'gone to war' - to coin a FF phrase - in the way that you would hope over this particular incident. We will have highlighted the differences in circumstance between the Jones/Edmundson incident and the Rangers 5 incident. We will, no doubt, have mentioned the lack of action over Dubai and will have received some sort of laughable explanation from the SFA - but that's about it.

This Appeal won't be about a battle to the death in the trenches. Nothing coming out of Rangers suggests that. There's been no outrage or anger, merely measured comments to the effect that this incident was different to others, in particular the Jones/Edmundson one. Right from the start Gerrard has called the players out for their actions. It showed a lack of respect for both him and the Club. He has accepted that they will be banned and hasn't at any point suggested they shouldn't be. It simply isn't the battle you want it to be.

If we get the bans reduced on those grounds then great. I don't expect it though and I don't expect outrage from Rangers if they aren't. Just more measured comments along the lines 'we think the punishments are on the harsh side in comparison to others'.

Maybe I will end up with egg on my face and we will, as others have suggested, challenge them further with a 'see you in Court'. I will eat my hat if that happens though. It's only my opinion at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
A 2 game ban track including games missed due to preemptive measures from the club and 3 or 5 suspended would be harsher than most.
I don't see why the club shouldn't fight or at least argue such a point.
 
Read extracts of Nathan Patterson's Autobiography in this weeks Sun. Nathan who retired as Manager of Rangers aged 65 last week, after winning the Champions League as both player and later as manager at Rangers recalls the time the SFA took 5 years to deliver a verdict on an appeal for being banned for some games.
 
Gibraltar Loyal said:
Read extracts of Nathan Patterson's Autobiography in this weeks Sun. Nathan who retired as Manager of Rangers aged 65 last week, after winning the Champions League as both player and later as manager at Rangers recalls the time the SFA took 5 years to deliver a verdict on an appeal for being banned for some games.
Click to expand...
Seems about right :)
 
Gibraltar Loyal said:
Read extracts of Nathan Patterson's Autobiography in this weeks Sun. Nathan who retired as Manager of Rangers aged 65 last week, after winning the Champions League as both player and later as manager at Rangers recalls the time the SFA took 5 years to deliver a verdict on an appeal for being banned for some games.
Click to expand...
Brilliant mate
 
Still nothing !!? Haha this really is a shambles - I didn’t even think the SFA / SPFL were capable of this much of a sham - a laughing stock.
 
Our lawyers will have them over a barrel re their inaction over Dubai aka hypocrisy and inconsistency. Desperately trying to find a way not to lose face but still appear ‘strong’. I predict it’ll be reduced by a game in the hope we’ll move on and all covid related shit can be forgotten.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top