delurker

Yep; Gordon stood and watched both ball and players trundle past him into the box, yet again doing nothing to stop them. Had a feeling of foreboding as soon as I saw him coming on.

Spot on; high on the 'deserving of bankruptcy' list.

Genuinely hope they go bust.

#notaf***penny

Sterling performance, well worth 380k a year.

I think you're right, but we shouldn't even get that, given the precedent of Rangers taking the SFA to the court of session in 2012 and not even being cited for it, let alone punished.

Well, quite. But if my reading is correct, we need to present that apparent inconsistency and failure to apply these rules when we answer the citation.

Don't see why a disciplinary charge for bringing the game into disrepute would be reserved for CoS; the other exception there seems more likely: 'with the exception of any matter for which the Judicial Panel or tribunals appointed therefrom have jurisdiction under these Articles'. Even then, an earlier article forbids disputes covered by the Judicial Panel protocol from being taken to a court of law. And 99.12 forbids an 'SFA Dispute' from being taken to a court of law.

If so, why were Rangers not directed to the arbitration procedure and not cited for breaking the articles by going to the CoS ? (Presuming they weren't)

From my brief reading of article 99, it does seem to apply also to a dispute with the SFA, an 'SFA Dispute' as distinct from a 'Football Dispute'. Articles 99.6 and 99.9.

Let me clarify; no mention that it should be arbitrated by the SFA procedure that we are being told has to be used.

Had a brief look into it; the Court of Session overturned an SFA judgement on Rangers in 2012. No mention from anyone of the dispute having to go to arbitration; SFA argued it should go to the CAS.

No idea; I guess the original poster had his facts wrong.

Current SFA articles were adopted in June 2011. So Rangers example would have been.

Good statement, clarifies well.