Jump to content

Motherwell Match Forfeit - Appeal Successful


Allan

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

Didn't Napoli get their forfeit overturned too? Obviously a different country with different authorities but hopefully we're referencing as many instances like this as possible. 

The panel has the power to do as it sees fit:

 

15.6.1 The Appellate Tribunal shall have the power to:

15.6.1.1 Affirm the Decision of the appealed Tribunal;

15.6.1.2 Uphold the appeal by setting aside the Determination appealed against and quashing any sanction imposed;

15.6.1.3 Uphold the appeal in part by setting aside part only of the Determination appealed against;

15.6.1.4 Substitute for the Determination appealed against a Determination to find the Appellant to have breached an alternative Disciplinary Rule; 

15.6.1.5 Order a lesser or an increased sanction to that imposed by the appealed Tribunal;

15.6.1.6 Refer the Case or any part of it back to the Tribunal concerned, or to a freshly constituted Tribunal;

15.6.1.7 Where it conducts a re-hearing, to re-Determine the Case afresh;

15.6.1.8 In relation to Club Licensing Determinations, grant, suspend, refuse to grant or withdraw a Club Licence and, where a Club Licence is granted, to Determine which Category of Club Licence should be awarded; and/or

15.6.1.9 Take any step which, in the exercise of its discretion, the Appellate Tribunal considers it would be appropriate to take in order to deal justly with the Case in question.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Scouser2 said:

The relevant part in regard to timings from the BBC article

*******

What will happen on Thursday?

Nothing until 18:00 GMT. That is when a SFA judicial panel appellate tribunal will begin to consider the case.

Like in most of the association's disciplinary cases, a three-strong body has been drawn from an existing list, with legal expertise foremost among their qualifications.

Although Kilmarnock and St Mirren appealed against their sanctions separately, the hearing will be heard together, with the clubs sharing the same QC. Despite that, it is feasible that their cases could reach different outcomes, given the divergence in the offences.

And, while a verdict could be announced late on Thursday, it seems more likely that the panel will take time to reach its decision, with most parties braced for a conclusion early next week.

Should the clubs be successful, the SPFL will rearrange the three outstanding matches. Should they fail, the table will be adjusted to award Motherwell an extra six points and Hamilton three.

Total farce this. Long drawn out yet Celtic business as usual 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wrangodog said:

Different circumstances but equally disruptive if all Doncaster cares about is fulfilling fixtures. Didn't we get into trouble for our undersoil  system not working properly when we had a grass pitch ? 

I’m sure the rules stipulate something about adequate pitch protection. It would be astonishing to punish a club for bad luck with the weather, but it’s equally idiotic to punish a club for players becoming ill during a pandemic. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dieter's Heeder said:

Didn't Napoli get their forfeit overturned too? Obviously a different country with different authorities but hopefully we're referencing as many instances like this as possible. 

They did.... but their appeal was heard by the guarantee board of (CONI), the Italian Olympic Committee, totally independent of the Italian football authority.

We on the other hand have the SFA.....

 

Edited by C4mmy31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jazza said:

 

Craig also makes a very good point on P&B, this is his post below, so these legals might surprise us as it appears they have already ruled against the SPFL.....

Under rule 14.4, the clubs have a right to appeal to the SFA, given that they have exhausted all rights of appeal the SPFL (there were none in this case). Normally, the punishment would be suspended immediately under SFA rule 14.12, but rule 14.13 allows the SPFL to oppose the suspension of the penalty.

In the case where the SPFL oppose the suspension of the penalty, it then has to be heard by what is known as a "Suspension Tribunal", which is a single legally qualified person who determines whether the punishment should be suspended pending appeal. The announcement on the SFA website on Boxing Day said that it was the decision of a Suspension Tribunal, which implies that the SPFL did try to block the suspension of the penalty.

The appeal was lodged by the clubs on or around 9th December. Depending on when the SFA then notified the SPFL of this appeal, the SPFL would have then had one working day to lodge their opposition to the suspension of the penalty. After that, the SFA would have to appoint the Suspension Tribunal, at which point they have five working days to make a determination.

The timeline therefore roughly matches up to the decision being made on the 23rd/24th December, but then probably not being announced or actioned until Boxing Day because that would have been the first time that the SPFL and/or SFA would have had people working again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wrangodog said:

Different circumstances but equally disruptive if all Doncaster cares about is fulfilling fixtures. Didn't we get into trouble for our undersoil  system not working properly when we had a grass pitch ? 

Doncaster only cares about fulfilling 4 specific fixtures , the rest are just an inconvenience for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, skygod said:

The panel has the power to do as it sees fit:

 

15.6.1 The Appellate Tribunal shall have the power to:

15.6.1.1 Affirm the Decision of the appealed Tribunal;

15.6.1.2 Uphold the appeal by setting aside the Determination appealed against and quashing any sanction imposed;

15.6.1.3 Uphold the appeal in part by setting aside part only of the Determination appealed against;

15.6.1.4 Substitute for the Determination appealed against a Determination to find the Appellant to have breached an alternative Disciplinary Rule; 

15.6.1.5 Order a lesser or an increased sanction to that imposed by the appealed Tribunal;

15.6.1.6 Refer the Case or any part of it back to the Tribunal concerned, or to a freshly constituted Tribunal;

15.6.1.7 Where it conducts a re-hearing, to re-Determine the Case afresh;

15.6.1.8 In relation to Club Licensing Determinations, grant, suspend, refuse to grant or withdraw a Club Licence and, where a Club Licence is granted, to Determine which Category of Club Licence should be awarded; and/or

15.6.1.9 Take any step which, in the exercise of its discretion, the Appellate Tribunal considers it would be appropriate to take in order to deal justly with the Case in question.

 

This worries me as they could change the reason for the disciplinary action to failing to fulfil a fixture to maintain the punishment while protecting Celtic from the fallout of their jolly to Dubai for a few beers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, livvy said:

This worries me as they could change the reason for the disciplinary action to failing to fulfil a fixture to maintain the punishment while protecting Celtic from the fallout of their jolly to Dubai for a few beers.

It wasnt the club who failed to fulfil the fixture, it was through recommendation from the local health board was it not? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KTIDanny85 said:

It wasnt the club who failed to fulfil the fixture, it was through recommendation from the local health board was it not? 

For whatever reason, the club failed to fulfil a fixture.

Unless the circumstances of the failure "are outside the control of the Club concerned and could not have been reasonably foreseen and reasonably anticipated and remedied", that is a disciplinary offence. 

You could say that there is no evidence that players contracted the virus as a result of the breaches of the Covid regulations, and that would be an argument to have if the charge arose. 

 

 

Edited by skygod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, skygod said:

For whatever reason, the club failed to fulfil a fixture.

Unless the circumstances of the failure "are outside the control of the Club concerned and could not have been reasonably foreseen and reasonably anticipated and remedied", that is a disciplinary offence. 

You could say that there is no evidence that players contracted the virus as a result of the breaches of the Covid regulations, and that would be an argument to have if the charge arose. 

 

 

With Sturgeon putting pressure on football looks like us and st mirren will be the fall guys and creptic get off scot free

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, livvy said:

This worries me as they could change the reason for the disciplinary action to failing to fulfil a fixture to maintain the punishment while protecting Celtic from the fallout of their jolly to Dubai for a few beers.

If they do that then it only serves to remove any doubt about the thoroughly corrupt nature and discrimination in our games hierarchy.

they’d look even more obviously biased. Not that this would worry them, but adds more fuel to the fire for an appeal to CAS.

Edited by Beaker71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, iceman said:

Breaking news -

@RaithRovers

are dealing with an outbreak of COVID-19 amongst the playing and backroom staff. They have applied to the SPFL for postponement of this Saturday’s match against

@ICTFC

Why would someone red card this?

 

If they cant field a team and we lose the appeal its very straightforward, 3-0 ICT and 3 points. If on the other hand we win who knows. They will make it up as they go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, muza1962 said:

Why would someone red card this?

 

If they cant field a team and we lose the appeal its very straightforward, 3-0 ICT and 3 points. If on the other hand we win who knows. They will make it up as they go along.

They’ll make it up as they go along, that is all us diddy teams deserve.

maxwell and wankface had exonerated Sellick within 5 milliseconds of them issuing their ‘no case to answer’ club statement, of course maxwell had to back track when Scottish Government leaned on him. But Sellick will still get off because they are one of the two clubs that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...