Now you brough that up what happens if Petrie added a % sell on clause for Whittaker when he signed for Rangers would Hibs get anything if they still in Admin if he left this summer????Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Printable View
Now you brough that up what happens if Petrie added a % sell on clause for Whittaker when he signed for Rangers would Hibs get anything if they still in Admin if he left this summer????Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Good to hear that fans of all support are looking forward to them dying.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Story So Far...
I do think VR will vote to keep them though as they'll have a better financial position to bring their wages under control and more saleable.
Hearts fans forget quickly they tried to screw Arbroath out of money they were due for Webster
That a cracking idea this must be passed onto every fans site :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
Good point and one I hadn't considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
Surely if they get out via a CVA it's back to business as usual so we should get it. I think he's one of the ones with a knockdown price in his new contract so we'd get less than we might have expected.
However, with the knockdown price it could benefit us though as I reckon they'd have kept him for the remainder of his career or at least til the late stages when they'd get little or nothing.
If theyre liquidated we'd get nout.
I've always wondered if clubs should offer a voluntary contribution option ring fenced for transfer funds. I don't think clubs do it because they'd get a negative reaction due to the amount supporters already put in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colr
Something like the membership scheme with the key selling point that the funds are to be used for transfers only.
Digressing from your point slightly but same principle.
I think that these 'sell on' clauses are usually on the basis that we get a percentage of the difference in the event of the player being sold for more than we originally received.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
In Whittaker's case, Rangers may well have to sell him for less than they paid us so their would be no 'profit' for us to share in.
IIRC selling Whittaker for £2M was seen as a great piece of business at the time: I doubt there will be any sell on clause.
I thought it was a pop at him too tbh, but I see your interpretation of it now and you may be right. The sentence should/could have also been written as: "easy for him to say, as he has managed his club within its means"Quote:
Originally Posted by tamig
We'd be rid of them for good! ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Unless, of course that someone holds some charge over the assets that needs to be satisfied first, £5m may be all that would be left.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
This whole issue is so messy, with so little transparency, that I would not be surprised if either Murray or Whyte still hold some securities. As for the players if liquidation occurs they belong to the SPL /SFA (can't remember which).
However the possibility that this is a right royal stitch up does not go away.
There's a fixed charge over the catering equipment and a disputed floating charge over all the assets, but according to the CVA there's no money due to the holder of the floating charge, so it doesn't reduce the value in any way. Preferred creditors are limited to holiday pay in the CVA and Newco options.Quote:
Originally Posted by banchoryhibs
I've just noticed though, that the Newco option specifically excludes freehold property from the £5.5m sale proceeds - it's made up of the £200k deposit thingy and £5.3m for 'Intellectual Property Rights (:tee hee:) / Goodwill and Player Contracts. I wonder what happens to Ibrox/Murray Park in that case, or is it just another gaffe? Other fixed assets are just ignored throughout.
I think we have to give credence to the 'cock-up theory'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Could it be that this is just for the "Club' and that Whyte does in fact retain the property to rent out to them ? I just can't believe that wee Craigy has given it all away for just £2.
I am not sure that the share transfer will have any effect on any claim that Whyte has on Rangers' fixed assets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
It seems to me that the SFA has no option left but to expel the Huns from the Association.Quote:
Originally Posted by H18sry
Thier own lawyer states that all the other options were too lenient and expelling them from the Cup (which is possibly 1 game) must also be considered to be too lenient.
You're right that the share transfer is irrelevant. However, the CVA document does say that no claim has been received in respect of CW's charge. That suggests to me that he will not be pursuing that charge.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
:agree: Having just read that report I agree with Lord Glennie, the SFA interpreted the rules incorrectly - I understand why they chose to do that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Clearly there was not a desire to 'kill' Rangers, which if I'm honest is a perfectly reasonable course for the SFA to take. All of which makes the appeal even more baffling to the outsider, surely D & P's lawyer must have been aware of this potential outcome?
As for the remaining sanctions 'available' to the SFA - given that they have imposed the maximum fine it stands to reason that further penalties must be at the maximum end of the scale with suspension being most likely I would have thought. I think how long for, is maybe irrelevant tbh, this ( if not something else sooner) will kill them off IMO.
In a way Rangers have actually done us all a favour with this. You can bet that the rule book will be getting tightened up so much it's watertight in the future which can only be a good thing + pushing the self destruct button - A good days work by the huns I would say.
It's a strange one. The properties belong to Rangers FC, there's no real doubt about that. The CVA proposal clearly states that the £5.3m is for IPR, goodwill and contracts only, which would suggest that the properties stay with the oldco. Maybe the intention is that the oldco will rent the properties out, but that means it can't liquidate and will continue to owe all that money to HMRC, Ticketus et al, and the question of the SPL share and SFA licence arises again. If someone else is going to buy it that should be stated in the proposal because it changes the picture fundamentally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
If it's a gaffe then it's a whopping great one, given that D&P were prepared to invoke the letter of the law regarding the signing embargo you would expect them to be ultra careful with the wording of their own documents, particularly one as important and contentious as this.
I did spot a typo somewhere in the proposal that gave the opposite meaning of what was intended, but it was very obvious that it was a typo. I can't find it again now but I'll have another look when I get a chance.
Whats the minimum suspension period?
Could suspension be a suspended sentence?
[QUOTE=Caversham Green;3253486
I did spot a typo somewhere in the proposal that gave the opposite meaning of what was intended, but it was very obvious that it was a typo. I can't find it again now but I'll have another look when I get a chance.[/QUOTE]
Was that Rangers FOOTBALL Club? :confused:
I think if they were going to suspend them for part of a season it would have to be the first 11 or 22 games so that no other clubs gained an advantage - i.e. they'd all either get 3-0 wins or the games would be void.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
They're not taking this lying down.... :)
http://m.scotsman.com/news/odd/glasw...2014-1-2335362
:greengrin Found it - para 5.32 says 'The joint administrators believe that there are any circumstances giving rise....' should read 'The joint administrators do not believe....'.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
An interesting read which seems to me that their QC has issued a plea to suspend them. And so say all of us........Quote:
Originally Posted by H18sry
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaPalmeiras
Once upon a time there was no business like show business, now there's no business NOT like show business.Quote:
Disney principles include treating every business “like showbusiness”, knowing how to create your “own show” and treating customers like “guests” rather than “customers”.
I can't believe that property is not be specified in the Newco deal! It's so valuable that this surely must be deliberate. So all Green gets for his £5.5m on liquidation is the football club and it's players. That would make sense if it meant the creditors got money from the sale of the property assets on top of the £5.5m. But if, as you say, the creditors get close to hee haw whichever way it goes then who gets the value from Rangers' property assets? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I have studied the actions of the SFA/SPL for some time and taken note of what has taken place with Rangers over the last few months .Quote:
Originally Posted by D7 Bohs
My prediction of the new punishment is that the club will be forbidden from watering the pitch for more than eight hours per day , they will be forbidden from selling pies at home games for the whole of July , they willl be forced to accept all honest mistakes made in their favour from referees for all games .
Rangers will complain publicy but will accept the punishment . Ally McCoist will deny he ever asked for the identity of the panel who issued the new punishment .
Then we can move on .
One rule for Rangers another rule for the rest off us.
I just can't shake off the feeling that Murray, Whyte, D&P and Green are all in cahoots with one another and that they and RFC will be laughing all the way to the bank after all this is over, leaving the tax payer and Scottish football to foot the bill.
Fascinating read - either their toast...or the SFA is ...can't see a middle ground now :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Absolutely GG. I think the guy hit the spot nicely though :aok:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Green Goblin
I believe it CW who will still own the club then maybe rent it to the Newco until such time they buy it from him, as stated his shares will not be transfered if a CVA fails to go throughQuote:
Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby
No man is going to risk getting sued £25 million on a deal he sells the club for £2 without some security
Charles Green is now officially panicking.......
http://www.tv.rangers.co.uk/articles...254024_2796603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
In everyone elses view it would be a disaster for Scottish Football if Rangers are allowed to get away with it Scot free. About time they just shut up shop.
It sounds like another delaying tactic and they are going to appeal the decision themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by semaj64
Rangers want a punishment that isn't a punishment but looks like a punishment. SFA need to nail this now and prove to Rangers that they don't dictate Scottish football. Man is here 5 minutes and telling everybody what should happen.
there is a meeting on 14 th june at 1 pm for the cva proposals. meeting with creditors same day 10 am , thats what the letter my girlfriend got from duff n phelps duno wit it means but there you go.
If the CVA doesn't go through, and the property is left in the OldCo, with all the debts... that company will have to be liquidated to go toward the debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
Taking that further, the property will then be on the open market. CG would have to take his chances in that, but you could see a situation whereby he then owns the lot.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Why is it that they seem to think they can pick a punishment for themselves??
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
coz they arra peepul
Scots law blog response to Charles Green's ridiculous statement tonight..........
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...lly/#more-1236
Offering to take ban from Cup, shocking cheek.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
5 year ban from cup and 11 game SPL suspension is minimum penalty...provided life support aint removed.
As mentioned in the Scots Law Blog, the Appealate Tribunal cannot impose a suspension or ban on Rangers competing in the cup, only ejection and one can only be ejected whilst currently participating (which of course they aren't) - besides if they did, there would likely be a massive backlash by the majority of Scottish Football supporters. The only way forward really is either termination of membership or suspension of membership for a minimum of one season. Either will most likely result in the liquidation of the club currently known as Glasgow Rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minder
:violin:
:faf:
:lolrangers:
:bye:
That sentence just rolls off the tongue.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wee Hibby
An 11 game ban will only anger those clubs who put money before integrity. Derhun will play say 5 home games and six away so half the SPHELL will miss out on a home gate against that lot whilst the half won't, unfair screams coming from the lot that miss out. It would therefore mean, in fairness to ALL clubs that any suspension would have to be for 22 games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minder
Only in Scotland would anyone be trying to give a team a part of season suspension?Quote:
Originally Posted by MB62
It has to be relegation to the bottom league, plus a suspension of signing any player for 12 months and a huge fine, minimum.
I agree with you Blackpool, but I do still fear that the punishment will be minimal and Rangers will be the ones smiling in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
I agree. But if they are going to go down the route of a part season suspension, the only ways it would work would be either a 22 game suspension, or an 11 home game suspension. The 11 home game suspension would reduce their income whilst not damaging the other clubs in the SPL.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
Totally agree with you BH. Personally, I would kick them out of the league and never let them back in.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
As for this, we couldn't survive without them, as has been said many times now by other, it has now become a case of, if we don't throw them out, we might not survive WITH them.
I was talking to an Aberdeen supporter at the weekend and asked if she had re-newed her season ticket yet. He answer was, no danger, not until I find out what is happening with rangers, if they are allowed back in the SPL she will not be going back.
Many other fans seem to be taking exactly the same stance.
Scottish football is at a crossroads here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by easty
In this instance, they might JUST get away with what seems like a lenient punishment. However, the big bomb of the dual-contracts investigation is still pending and that is the one which could easily see them kicked out of football.
Thats the point, we shouldnt be going down any route that has part suspension in it, is this actually in the rules?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergio sledge
They went to court on the basis that the years suspension of signing players was not written in the rules, well i'd bet my last penny part suspension is not there either.
1 year minimum is i think, we wouldn't want to give them a suspension thats not in the rules.
:agree: To be fair to the SFA we're still discussing the crimes for which they thought a year's signing embargo was sufficient - and I tend to agree with them when I set aside the point that it's the despicable huns we're talking about. In the absence of a signing embargo a part season's suspension doesn't seem unreasonable. As MB points out though it would only be fair to the other clubs if it was for 22 games because of the home/away discrepancy and fairness to the other clubs should be the first concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidge
If they're found guilty of the dual contracts scam though there should be no way back for them because that is prolonged wilful cheating and has no place in any sport.
Would any potential suspension stop them from playing any games or just league games?
If it's just league games, then what's the chances of them lining up a series of lucrative home friendlies for every Saturday afternoon through the period of league suspension? They'd end up with even more money coming in!
Would a possibility of Rangers having to play every home game for a season behind closed doors be an option? means that they still get to play but generate no cash whatsoever from fan revenue.
probably the same impact as a susupension but just means that the team get a 'home' run out every 2nd week and other teams don't have a blank week to fill.
Apart from Celtic, do many other teams take a large support to Ibrox these days?
To be pendantic, it's not part suspension, it's full suspension for a set period or number of games. Suspension is certainly available and I can't see anything in the rules that prevents a suspension being for part of a season. I can't see anything that prevents a signing embargo being used as a sanction either though.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs
On this one, my recollection is that the SFA "inquiry" on dual contracts started almost three months ago. And for the last few months hasn't Doncaster been saying that the inquiry is "ongoing"? And now we discover that Rangers IA / D&P didn't actually respond to the SPL request for info until last week? Who kicks off a major inquiry into wholesale cheating, and then does nothing for three months?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Who would want to play them? All the SPL and EPL and Championship clubs would be busy with their important league games. Those clubs wouldn't want to risk injury to their players by playing against a disgraced team who are serving their punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
Money talks. I'm sure they could get a few foreign teams who start their seasons later on to fly over if a few bob was thrown their way. They'd also be able to get the likes of Linfield to turn up, more legends games etc. An 11 game suspension would only take them into October anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
They'd find a way. TBH, if it meant sticking two fingers up at the rest of Scottish football then they could probably have one half of their squad play they other and thousands of them would turn up.
That's if they have enough players in their squad by then to fill two teams though :cb
That should be SPL rather than SFA, although I can't really see a legitimate reason why it's not the SFA that's conducting the enquiry as I doubt whether the SPL has the power to suspend or expel them from football as a whole rather than just from their own league, and the fraudulent registering of contracts affects the whole of football.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
On top of that, I now have infinitely more faith in the SFA and Regan than I do in the SPL and Doncaster who has shown himself to be inherently dishonest and incompetent IMO. It's vital that the fans of other SPL clubs keep up the pressure on him to do the right thing or resign.
I think suspension means from the whole of football rather than just te league competitions - the SFA normally provide referees etc, so I think any games staged by RFC would have to be unofficial friendlies. And of course, they don't have any money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
Yeah you're right. I checked before posting (I get so confused by these two "governing" bodies) and I changed the second reference but not the first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Would they have any players? I'd have thought all first team players would be sent out on loan for the period of there suspensionQuote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
A decent summary of what can happen in the next two weeks:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...fortnight.html
You know, it's not like other leagues, in other countries haven't had to deal with things like this before. Why does Scotland have to try too hard to come up with a solution. Anything other than relegation to a lower league makes it hard for us to hold our head up in the company of other nations.
Oh wait, we stopped worrying about credibility many years ago. What other country structures their league so that two teams can maximise their income by playing each other a minimum 4 times a year?
How will this affect my house price?Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSauzee
Can't they just relegate them and allow the Pars to stay up, throw back in the transfer ban too of course.
:tee hee:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
That is not open to the SFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westie1875
The SPL should have docked them another 50 points before the split and all this would have been a problem for the SFL to sort out.
:confused: I thought their demise was what all this jubbilly celebrations rubbish in the pissin rain in England was about?Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
I'm guessing that since the SFA don't run either of the leagues, but (I think) license clubs to participate in organised football, that they would be suspending their license to play. The ramifications would be for the SFL / SPL to work out. As someone else said, they would need referees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
Shirley Davie Weir could pick that up where he left off?Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m
David Healy has left Rangers after the expiration of his contract.
I bet Rangers derived great benefit from paying his wages for the past few months.
Did Rangers get any benefit from paying David Healys wages ever? He was awful!Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
No you are getting mixed up with the arrest of three Romanian Big Issue sellers who were plotting to murder Liz in her bed, and feed her body to the pigs. Had it not been for Eastern Europeans undercutting wages, Rangers would have been able to contribute much more to the celebrations. It's what they would have wanted the taxes they didn't pay to be spent on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
Now I see, was a bit confused, all that standing about in the rain in a beer tent, just hope I haven't offended anyone with my over the top celbrations about the death of the huns and how it was nice to see Britain uniting to celebrate ............it was all them Union Jacks and beer that done it.:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
So the queens been fed to the pigs eh? no doubt we will see mass protests at Ibrox.
This situation is getting to the stage that the SPL can't try and keep them in the league, can they!!
Surely a blind man/ woman can see what is/ has been going on. Every day I get home from work to see 4/5 even 6+ pages added to this thread. I put the kettle on make a big brew and settle down to what has turned out to be very educational to say the least. (thanks to CWG & CG for that :aok:)
The very thought of them getting off lightly with this will kill our game off good and proper .. :rolleyes: I know that many posters have said the they (spl & sfa) need to "grow a pair" and more so than ever! An opportunity to try and give us back our game can't be lost to this lot :agree: It's bordering on madness!!..
I'm off back to work and look forward to the next few pages being added... :greengrin
I am really perplexed as to what a part season suspension would involve?
The whole thing is already past being a farce. Scottish Football will become the laughing stock of Europe, if it is not that already.
So one team has to sit out the first 11 matches (or is it 22?). if it is 11 matches then certain teams will miss out on a home match and all the revenue associated. Will teams be offering a partial rebate on season tickets? Presumably the other team are awarded a 3-0.
Talk about sporting integrity! That is not on.
The SFA are in a total quandry. If they give a lesser penalty to Rangers then FIFA will be all over them like a rash. There is no penalty available that equates to a 12 month transfer ban. Hence it must be at least a one year suspension. An SFA Cup ban for Rangers will ensure that five SPL clubs will not appear in European competition next season.
As others have said, there's Refs etc to think about... the killer is though.. WHO would play them? ..... any UEFA affiliated team would put their own position in dire jeopardy! (as well as their Country's FA)..... so the best they could hope from is some back of beyond pub team from outer mongolia or something :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
:lolrangers:
This! We are the laughing stock of Europe. Even the Italians make a show of punishing corruption in league that is corrupt to the core.Quote:
Originally Posted by Filled Rolls
If Rangers are anywhere near the SPL next year then it's good night from me. Scottish football will cease to have any meaning for me.
No team can start to compete in a league part way through - it can't be done. Who do they play, do they get any credits for the games they've missed ?Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Maybe they just come back into the league for 4 matches (all v Celtic) :wink:
You have to wonder what the point is in following a competition that is inherently rigged. Our national game (and by extension our nation) has as much credibility as Pro. Wrestling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
Now I know there are votes at stake, and the fortunes of our two biggest clubs are very delicate political subjects. Surely though, there has to come a point when our leaders have to address the issue. It means us looking like a banana republic, before we have even achieved independence.
If Rangers get away with it then you have to feel some sympathy for those who see the whole set up in Scotland as a conspiracy to maintain the establishment. I fully expect Celtic to take this opportunity to finally strike back against all those years of oppression, and seize the opportunity to put their tormentors out of business. They would surely then feel that they have earned their place in Scottish society and no longer feel like outsiders.
Had to post this ,a question is asked in all sincerity on Rangers Media .
Why Are We Hated In Scotland ?
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=221865
The Orcs cant help themselves ,:greengrin
Are they for real? Are they really so naive? What a bunch of fluffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
I could accept it if I felt there was even a tiny hint of self-deprecating irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
But there isn't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
Help ma boab .......... :rolleyes:
"There seems to be an alarming rise in Republicanism in this country. Too many people served by self-interest, bitterness and hatred. To them, having a kick at Rangers is as good as having a kick at the monarchy and unionism."
The way I see it the SPL/SFA have 3 seperate charge opportunities to kick them out the league.
Case1. Bringing the game into disripute (embargo appeal)
Case 2. Bringing the game into disripute by taking the SFA to civil court
Case 3. Possible double contracts
There I see it there is no way Rangers can dodge anything less then a suspension or expelled from the league if they do i'd be amazed!!!
How ever the way i'd like to see this is
Case 1. Embargo Stands
Case 2. 30 deduction
Case 3. Expulsion
A nice slow death :)
I don't think a part season suspension is an ideal solution, but Rangers themselves have managed to engineer a position where there is no ideal solution - apart from them accepting the original sanction. My opinion is that the original sanction was just about right for the crimes they were being tried for - that of course is open to debate but both tribunals thought likewise. The signing embargo gave them the opportunity to avoid relegation but with a degree of difficulty similar to that experienced by some of the teams they cheated, and we're still looking for another punishment that puts them in the same position. A 22 game suspension would give them 16 games to save themselves and would treat the other 11 clubs equally - they all 'miss out' on a home and away game against the huns, but would be awarded a 3-0 win. There would be a spare team each week, but they could possibly arrange friendly games - in truth it's not that different from game being snowed off etc except that it's predetermined. The alternative of a full season suspension or expulsion effectively kills off RFC and, while we all think that's desirable, it was never the intention of this particular punishment. It also works regarding fixture lists and promotions with the least inconvenience to other clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
It might all be academic in any case because the double contracts inquiry should kill them off if they're found guilty.
Anyway, here's another good piece by Paul McConville - the guy should be on the SFA board. http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...late-tribunal/
A 22 game suspension would mean that every other team would have a 36 game season. one home game fewer and so would need to refund everyone who has bought a ST already. Far simpler to treat them like simple cheats and boot them out (and then continue with our imperfect 12 team league including either Dundee or Dunfermline) rather than trying to find any way to accommodate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Unbelieveable..... They are mental.... The more I read from them with each passing issue the more I want rangers to get all that's coming to them... No humility whatsoever.Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
The swastika didnt used to be a symbol of hate and we all have Hitler to thank for that.... Albeit to a lesser extent but In recent history, they have done an equivelant with the union jack in this country.... Madness!
I couldn't care less about religion or politics.... It's football FFS!
****my hate filled trumpet *******s
RANT!
I nearly registered just to reply to the thread...but stopped myself in timeQuote:
Originally Posted by cad
Not advisable. The admins of Hunmedia keep a note of people's IP addresses. I hate to think what they do with that info.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuitdelune
Nazi *****.
If they can arrange a friendly they could let the ST holders into that, or offer some other compensation for the one missed game - I don't think that's an insurmountable problem. As John Yorkston said Dunfy and Dundy are already budgetting for life in the first division and unexpected promotion could cause them more problems than it would solve. Then of course you would have to decide which of the two actually gets into the SPL - I doubt if there are any rules to cover that. I think if Rangers do expire the SPL will struggle on with 11 clubs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
On the other hand, I doubt if the SPL has rules to cover suspension for part of a season either, so it may be a non-starter. The problem with this debate is that we're all biased against Rangers and would love to see them simply booted out of football. From the SFA's point of view they are just a member club that has to be treated impartially, and it has already been decided by two independent panels that the level of punishment required for the crimes under consideration is the signing embargo so they now have to find another punishment that will be neither harsher nor more lenient than that.
An 11 game suspension might be possible if it only applied to Huns home games, thus allowing everyone a home game against them.
A 22 game suspension could be interesting, as there is a possibility of relegation and a certainty of a bottom six finish (just don't tell Sky).
But I'll suggest a full season's suspension will be the outcome, with the Huns TV money and the prize money for twelfth being divided amongst the other eleven clubs to compensate for losing a home game. It will then be up to the clubs to decide how to compensate season ticket holders (probably with vouchers for the club shops).
Don't think it would be practical to have an eleven team league playing each other four times, because that would mean finding 44 match days rather than 38.
What did they say in the thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
Wow...some of the responses on that thread are hunbelievable....
- Protestant, British and the most successful Club in the World is why we're hated
- Untold amounts of speculation portrayed as facts with everyone backing up allegations while branding the Rangers Brand Toxic.....
- British and Protestant
- Protestant work ethic, my friend, there's your evidence for it right there. Rangers & Linfield 100+ titles
- my opinion is that it has absolutly nothing to do with envy or football it is polotics.the taig want independence and we are the one and only institution in scotland that stand for the union.
- Payback – They’ve never forgiven the prods for Trafalgar and the Boyne.
-They want to be us.
And this a response to why some people don't like a football club....just reading that thread really makes you wonder how anyone could ever possibly think that Scottish football 'needs' Rangers...It clearly shows the opposite and that this is a fantastic opportunity to rid our game of a substantial amount of hatred and bigotry, an opportunity that shouldn't be missed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
From a biased opinion or not the rules that have been set down for them by the CoS seem to be quite clear....they now seem to have to choose from the range of punishments explicitly listed. Unless there is an 11th hour change of heart from Rangers to accept the initial punishment there seems little the SFA can do but suspend them…
Juventus had the book thrown at them, and they deserved it, years in the wilderness for Italys BIGGEST club. Corrupt league it may have been or may be, but they have the balls to punish clubs..
I assume this is raised elsewhere but is the fine absorbed in the CVA? Even if now fined the maximum they only would pay 8-9%. If this is correct, with FIFA watching, the case for suspension or expulsion is clear and one or the other must surely follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
Fannies :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
From the threadQuote:
Because:
Fact:
1- We're better than everyone else, and always have been.
2- We command the press and dominate the news in times good or bad because of how huge we are.
Fiction:
1- We're all racist and sectarian bigots. Down to the last child.
2- We are all English
3- We are all directly related to Edward I
4- We killed William Wallace. Down to the last child.
5- We don't pump weans.
6- We don't go on about our European cup like it was won last year against Barcelona.
1. Suspended for a yearQuote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
2. Suspended for a year, to run concurrently (just incase they try to appeal one!)
3. Stripped of all titles won whilst running double contracts.
:wink: