Where did they say that they accepted the findings in full? Because they didn't waste time arguing the toss doesn't mean they agreed with it.
Did they appeal the findings (verdict) or the punishment? Simple question. If they did not appeal the verdict then they have accepted it.
I disagree. What useful purpose would appealing the findings have served when the SFA had left them an open goal with regards to the punishment?
So let's take this to it's logical conclusion, are you suggesting that a criminal, if convicted, who appeals the punishment but not the conviction may be considered wholly innocent of any wrongdoing? If that's the case then the Jails are full of innocent men. If Rangers thought they had no case to answer then any Lawyer worth the name would have challenged the verdict the first time around, they did not, no one that I am aware of at Rangers - either at the hearing or after it - spoke out and complained that the decision was incorrect. That's why they appealed ONLY the sanction and only because the wording of the SFA statute was vague. Rangers appealed the punishment and had it reappraised in a court of law and referred back to the SFA appelant hearing on a technicailty.
If I'm charged with shoplifting and the judge sentences me to be hung by the neck until dead, I'd hope my lawyer would vigorously challenge the legality of the sentence rather than quibble about whether I'd nicked a Mars bar or not.
But if you are innocent then you need not worry about hanging. Besides, Rangers did not face imminent death did they? Only a 12 month signing ban. Maybe it's just as well Rangers were not facing that hangman in your analogy, they would be building the gallows as we speak because of the stupidity of your Lawyers and D&P. if the decision was incorrrect in law it would have been mentioned by Lord Glennie, even he accepted Rangers guilt, that's why he sent it back to the SFA to deal with as they see fit.
please log in to view this image Behave yourself, Dev. Lord Glennie specifically states that the court was only concerned with whether the imposition of the additional sanction by the Disciplinary Tribunal was legal.
Dev, as far as I was aware Rangers did originally contest the verdict. That was the reason for the matter going to the 'independent' appeals panel. After they agreed with the original verdict, they decided the punishment was fitting. Rangers then appealed the punishment, but not the verdict. I would think Rangers accepted that both panels agreed with the verdict, however they could not accept the punishment. Perhaps they were hoping that the appeals panel rejected the verdict, thus rejecting the punishment. Bit long winded but to me it makes sense.
So saying "im actually starting to like the Greeks" is the same as "I am a fan of a right wing racist Greek political group" Saying I like the Greeks for putting on a wonderful display of television does not mean that I am a fan of everyone in that country. I like Americans in general too but it doesn't mean I like everyone in that country. Mindy fail
The Rangers Football Club plc (in Administration) was represented by Mr Andrew Dickson, its Head of Football Administration; Mr Simon Shipperlee, of Messrs Duff and Phelps, the Administrators, and Mr Michael McLaughlin, Solicitor, of Biggart Baillie LLP. Mr Craig Whyte was not in attendance, nor was he represented.No written representation or response to the Notice of Complaint had been submitted after an earlier bare denial of the alleged breaches was intimated by his former solicitors (who had since intimated to the Panel that they were no longer acting), nor had any application been made to the Tribunal for the giving or leading of evidence, or making of submissions at the Principal Hearing by any of the electronic means provided for in Paragraph 10.2.3 of the Judicial Panel Protocol. The Tribunal directed that accordingly, and notwithstanding the fact that in its written responses Rangers FC in substantial measure admitted the factual averments and a number of the alleged breaches of the rules, under explanation and mitigation, the Tribunal would require to establish a clear factual basis for its Determination of both any alleged breaches and, if applicable, any sanction against either or both Rangers FC or Mr Whyte. There appeared to be a clear conflict in the position of Rangers FC and the deemed absolute denial by Mr Whyte upon which the Tribunal was proceeding. There we have it, not only did Rangers not challenge the charges, they "admitted" them and simply tried to appeal to the panel using mitigation.
Quote mining and missing the point entirely into the bargain. Read the whole conversation then come back to me if you like.
It either means one thing or its a completely useless statement Dev, with or without the entire conversation you 3 are having that remark is only affected by 2 posts previous to you claiming that. You're basically saying if your innocent then theres no need to worry at court, which is a heap of ****e. I'll no be dragged into this either cause your a ****ing dafty, end of.
