Apologies for anyone who has just seen the same thread on GMK but ...
Two points on this
1. This is under Scottish jurisdiction, so the English courts may apply a different ruling
2. The year long embargo wasn't specified in the SPL regulations as a possible sanction, whereas it is there in black and white in the football league regulations, relating to the non filing of accounts
The only encouraging thing for me is that no further sanction (that I can see) is mentioned in relation to the ongoing non filing of accounts by City, in particular points deductions.
my understanding is the SFA extending the transfer embargo without it being a pre-agreed term/clause. all the clubs in English leagues know/agree to there being a transfer embargo if accounts not filed, and it is removed upon certain criteria.
basically the SFA were trying to make a name for themselves and prove a point, holding Rangers to ransom, now slightly back fired on them, but will have ne bearing on our current situation
Getting the embargo lifted wouldn't help us anyway: we can't even pay the rent, how can we sign players? Even the one's that Thorn claims are "free" (I assume they won't need paying, eh Andy?).
SISU love the embargo. It's a nice secure safety net between them and the possibility of us signing somebody. As long as there is an embargo, it's a bit more complicated than shouting directly at them for "not signing any players".
Getting the embargo lifted wouldn't help us anyway: we can't even pay the rent, how can we sign players? Even the one's that Thorn claims are "free" (I assume they won't need paying, eh Andy?).
SISU love the embargo. It's a nice secure safety net between them and the possibility of us signing somebody. As long as there is an embargo, it's a bit more complicated than shouting directly at them for "not signing any players".
Im sure AT is aware that players need paying. Remember though, clingan, platt, etc are no longer at the club so surely we have an idea of the wages budget availible.