Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck ................................... a dearth of testicles among the so-called rebels. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
Printable View
Cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck, cluck ................................... a dearth of testicles among the so-called rebels. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
I think the 10 are just waiting for the inevitable to happen, ie liquidation. When that happens it's one less OF vote and probably the right time to strike. I think it's more about timing rather than bottling it.
Resolution 5 proposes updates and extensions to the definition of Insolvency Event in the SPL Articles and clarifies the process in the event that a Member which is the subject of an Insolvency Event is required to transfer its share in the Company.Quote:
Originally Posted by sambajustice
The first part of this resolution amends the wording of what constitutes an Insolvency Event under SPL rules.
The second part is designed to bring clarity to what is required for a share transfer to take place.
Resolution Five requires the approval of 11 of the 12 member clubs.
Could be that the meeting has been cancelled to allow club boards to meet and discuss the proposals before coming back with their own comments. Looks to me like SPL board have come up with these proposals in an attempt to split the 10.
By the way should have seen this coming- Scotsman 14/02/2012
A new “phoenix” Rangers would be created, perhaps going under the name “Glasgow Rangers” as this is not incorporated in their official name, and the headaches would begin for the rest of Scottish football.It is a decision of the six-strong SPL board “on which basis the transfer of a league share” is allowed. By rights, a new Rangers should apply for SFA and SFL membership and join the Third Division. Celtic, from the noises made by chief executive Peter Lawwell would push for an outcome that would retain the SPL’s sporting integrity. However, with television deals and sponsorship contracts sold on the basis of a playing top-flight rivalry between the country’s big two, it is doubtful if the board, as a whole, would risk destabilising the finances of the entire SPL.
It is expected that a three-year points penalty, in the region of 15 points per season, would be pushed for, both in terms of a fairness rebalancing and a deterrent of sorts to others. The three-year period would also be in line with the probability a new Rangers would not be allowed to play European football for three years.
Rangers might not just be in the process of running themselves down – they may be taking Scotland’s top flight, and the country’s footballing reputation, with them.
Really makes you wonder what Lawwell's definition of integrity is
I'm just about to re-new my season tickets to get the Early Bird benefits but I was just wondering if Rod paps der Hun out of the SPL is he doing it so he will not need to give me free tickets? If thats the case I'd be happy to pass on Celtc tickets if he could get rid of them as well.
Whilst I understand and respect the views of those who say that they will stop attending SPL matches and/ or not renew their ST if these proposals go ahead, I cannot agree.
The effect would be to punish our club and cause a serious financial predicament, though no fault of the club. We need to stick together at this time and do everything we can to demand change but, please, let's not kill off the club that we love in doing so.
GGTTH
Just for clarification ..... if the resolutions (or the key controversial one(s) ) have to be passed by an 11 - 1 vote, does it not just take 2 of the Clubs to vote against it to kybosh the proposed resolution(s)? :confused:
If hibs vote this through then they will deserve some punishment imo, i will prove that they really don't listen to our fans, we ate at the point where we can change the whole of Scottish football for the betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Although i wouldn't finish with hibs for good i certainly wouldn't renew my season ticket and would just pick and choose what games i go to
Football fans are disillusioned with the game as it is, this would be the final straw for many
Rangers have gone into administration. That means that all debts are due now not at the end of the season or a year hence.Quote:
Originally Posted by HibeesLA
So Rangers are in default to Hearts, Rapid, Man City, Chelsea, etc as detailed in the Duff and Phelps document.
http://www.hibs.net/showthread.php?2...77#post3176277
We've created a site called SPL Fan Surveys to get our opinions and voices known, we won't be ignored, we'll work to get support from everyone no matter their team. :aok:
Please check the thread and get it out there!
If they allow this to happen then it is the custodians of the club who are killing it not the supporters who are unwilling to back a rigged league.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
It only takes two clubs to stop this proposal dead in it's tracks.
Hibs need to be one of them or I will withdraw my support. I won't be the only one.
Being Hibs is part of my identity, would be strange not supporting Hibs anymore
I trust that you have written to Hibs then to express your view ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Filled out and link posted on facebook! :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by WarringtonHibee
I've supported Hibs for years and fully expected to die a Hibs fan, but when common sense, sporting integrity and fair-play are no longer relevant - and the rules can so clearly be "bought" by the OF & Sky TV - then time to draw a line. Why would ANYONE want to be associated with a corrupt sport ? Its one thing to suspect it, quite another for it to be laid out bare for all to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
It appears that Vlad was right after all.
They haven't even drafted these resolutions properly:
Resolution 2A proposes further sporting sanctions in the event that any Club undergoes an Insolvency Transfer Event (i.e. transfers its share in the SPL to a new company where this occurs because of the insolvency of the transferor) of 10 points in each of two consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.
Resolution 2B proposes revisions to the fee payment arrangements i.e. SPL fees to any Club which has undergone an Insolvency Transfer Event will be reduced by 75% in each of three consecutive seasons from the Insolvency Transfer Event.
These sanctions are placed on the Club which undegoes the Insolvency Transfer Event (ie the Huns) and not the new company to which its SPL share is transferred (ie Hun NewCo), so completely useless...
You need to combine all these surveys, Facebook pages into one focused campaign (with a single voice) for it to succeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by WarringtonHibee
Ok, how's this for an idea. Supporters of the 'Rebel 10' buy their season tickets as normal but we boycott the Rangers home games. The club still gets the season ticket revenue but the empty home stands show the depth of feeling felt towards Rangers, and the SPL for allowing them to go unpunished. If every club did this it would they would at least send out a message. If Rod and other Chairman still aren't happy they could sell more of the stadium to the unwashed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
That's the idea of this, it's one domain and one twitter account, one central place. Going forward all sorts of questions can be asked in the future, regarding splits, restructure, everything. The idea is to make our voices heard. It needs posting anywhere and everywhere, a good response already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
IMHO that would last maybe one game and then back to normal within a few weeks - a token protest that doesn't come close to addressing the issue. IMHO we need to stick to our main demand = "No to 2A".Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac_Refvik
That's great but other fans/groups will emerge with similar ideas, websites etc. You need to combine efforts across all the clubs to have max effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by WarringtonHibee
Giant waste of time. Only the withdrawal of cash will make the board take notice of the fans. We have to make it clear we will not be made to look like idiots because that's exactly what we will be if rangers are allowed back on the league. How will you fell in two seasons time walking into the pub after rangers clinch the SPL at easter road? All the Huns smirking at you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac_Refvik
No it doesn't. All but two of the resolutions can be passed by an 8-4 majority so it needs five clubs to oppose them. The two 11-1 resolutions are the reduction of SPL money and the redefinition of an insolvency event, which looks to me like a small-print adjustment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
In truth the resolutions need to be considered individually because some are reasonable measures while others are clearly designed purely to save the huns.
I've seen this on the other thread too. At the moment the huns can be waved back in without sanction with the same vote. What measure do you think are designed to save them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I hate them as much as the next man by the way but I don't see much in this in terms of making it easier for them. If anyhting there are now clear sanctions that would be applied in the event that the SPL did vote them back in. Sanctions that don't exist right now, but the voting back in does.
Crap blog ("mutually exclusive"? Why?) but some interesting comments below.
I thought comment number 1 was very clear.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jimspence...ls_provok.html
More from the man at Channel 4
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...aying-owe/1114
Believe me, this has spread quickly between a fair few clubs, a lot of Hearts and Celtic and a fair few Aberdeen fans are getting in on it. Amongst other teams. It's only a few hours old and has already received over 270 responses and is growing quicker and quicker...Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
...I'm clearly not going to get any work done today... :greengrin
The resolutions introduce an apparently new concept - an 'Insolvency Transfer Event' - without defining it. Resolution 2A, which requires an 8-4 majority, acknowledges this concept, so by accepting the resolution the clubs will implicitly be accepting the concept. Resolution 2A appears ahead of resolution 5 on the agenda, so the concept is accepted and resolution 5 simply defines or refines it. The idea of an 'Insolvecy Transfer Event' has arisen purely to ease the introduction of Newhun into the SPL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
It acknowledges the concept in order that a sanction can be applied by the looks of it, otherwise ta newco can use the existing method of simply transferring the share and having it approved. If the insolvency event is not calrified and accepted then, as it stands now, they could be back in without sanction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
I don't see how by acknowledging the concept it makes it any easier to get through the vote you would need to transfer the share. As it stands the transfer could take place anyway, and we'd all be only too aware that it happened due to insolvency.
The only thing I can think of to suggest this makes it easier for them is that the clubs are thinking about the sanctions and making sure they are there, therefore it must be on their minds to let them back in. To be honest I think that is the case anyway, without these changes, so at least this and other financial issues would now have a clear avenue to action sanctions.
As I said above I don't want them back in but I think the reaction to this is a bit wide of the mark. There's plenty here that has big implications for Hearts in particular.
The problem is that it doesn't specify what an insolvency transfer event is but by passing the resolution the clubs will be accepting that such a thing exists and the SPL can make it whatever they want it to be. Resolution 2A could be passed (8-4) while resolution 5 could fail (11-1) thus we have acknowledgement of an insolvency transfer event which would allow RFC to carry one out. Furthermore the resolution reducing the SPL fees could also fail - it only needs one other club to oppose it - so we have Newhun in the SPL receiving 100% of the fees for second place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
I agree about the implications for Hearts which is why I'm stressing that each proposal needs to be considered on its own merits.
All is not lost for Rangers:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17678447
If a NEWCO was formed it does not bear the debts of the oldco-after all that's the whole point.Therefore the idea that somehow a NEWCO would take on the sanctions earned by the oldco is unsustainable and would obviously lead to legal challenge which it will win.There is absolutely no way that a court will allow a NEWCO to be financially punished for something it has not done-apart from anything else there is the human rights position.Of course this could be part of the SPL plan to pretend that they are punishing Rangers when they will be doing nothing of the kind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
It could be part of the conditions governing the transfer of the SPL share from Old-Hun to New-CO Hun. They must also accept the sanctions that go with the share transfer.
On second thoughts its all to complicated, just relegate the bassa's down to the Sunday Church's 7 a-side league. :greengrin
In which case the other teams wouldn't vote them back in. There's nothing automatic about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
I'm actually surprised that most people as seeing this as a negative, unless of course most had talked themsleves into the fact that Rangers would not be readmitted in any way.
The rest can still say no to voting them back if they like, even if they vote this stuff in for future.
It's all about trust Andy. The points you've been making are all valid, but this comes after a lengthy campaign of misinformation involving both the chairman and chief executive of the SPL as well as the press and Rangers FC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
We've had the CE claiming that the vote to reinstate RFC was down to the six-man board, one of whom has made it clear that finance overrules integrity in his view.
We've had the chairman trying to persuade the vast majority of clubs not to pursue the changes they proposed with the implication that their actions were damaging the commercial prospects of the league. It seems very convenient for him that these proposals are issued just as the 'rebels' were about to meet.
We've had Duff & Phelps and various others claiming that a CVA was a likely outcome when any sober analysis would view it as a remote possibility.
Duff & Phelps also claimed to be about to announce the preferred bidders when these proposals were issued. Is it convenient or inconvenient for them to claim that the goalposts have now moved? You'l have to make your own mind up but to me the timing stinks.
As you've been saying the mechanism is already in place for the removal of a liquidated Rangers from the SPL - indeed it's what would happen unless 11 clubs voted otherwise - that makes these proposals superfluous for the current circumstances unless they are specifically intended to save RFC's SPL status.
In short the SPL no longer has any credibility for the majority of non-OF supporters and that is why these proposals are viewed with suspicion.
Have you written to the Board to express your view. We need to stop this before it happens, not go off in the sulk afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Onion
For what it is worth, I think that if there is one club that will vote against then it is Hibs. Let's give RP some ammunition though.
Apologies for posting this if it's already been done, but spotted this link on rangerstaxcase.com and it brilliantly sums up the situation IMHO.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...cottish-soccer
What Churchill meant to say (not the dog kids...)
Neva in the field of football conflict
Has so much been written by so many regarding so few.
Anyone watching this Mark Dingwall on Sky just now...a complete idiot of the highest order. Totally embarrassing and yet again the Huns are so ignorant to the cheating that they've overseen. Hope they rot in hell!
I spoke to a local Jurno last week ( Stuart Bathgate ) about the interpretation of the SPL rules in relation to a New-Co being allowed back into the SPL by approval of the SPL Board. He was a bit unsure himself and said he would speak to Doncaster and call me back .
He called back the next day with Doncaster's interpretation of the SPL Rules and the reasoning why the Full SPL do not get a say in the New Rangers staying in the SPL.
The idea is Rangers 1872 can transfer their SPL share to the New Rangers even 5 minutes before actually being liquidised and that transfer can be approved by the SPL Board alone under Article 11.
This is obviously subverting the actual meaning of the Rules and I think the new proposals are meant to fall somewhere between Clause 11 with the Board's majority approving Ranger's SPL place and Clause 14 which required 10 Spl members to re-admit der Hun.
A great mug's guide to the Rangers' fiasco.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindsummit
The other thing I find strange RANGERS are against this as well (I reckon they thought they could just walk back in with no punishment) so it will only take one other SPL Club to vote against it (Celtic?) for it to be dumped. Got to think that the chairman at St. Johnstone and the guy at Dundee Utd. would not be up for this so maybe there is nothing to worry about. Wait a minute I also forgot but Mad Vlad and his rants , he will think this has proved him correct so maybe they might vote against it as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebakerboy
.............................. God knows how Vlad would react to the proposals. For example, he might take personal umbrage at the bit about non-payment of players.
Judging by their response to my email, they're already signed up to this cheat's charter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
:agree: Oh Yes :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaPalmeiras
You willing to share?Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
I'd rather not quote directly, but the gist of it was basically that we should ignore the Rangers situation and back Hibs regardless. I hadn't even suggested that anyone should stop giving money to Hibs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
My problem really is that any endorsement of the newco concept is in complete contradiction of the values that Hibs have been adhering to for the last 10 years or so. All this prudence talk and using some of the transfer (and car park) income to pay down the debt level will have been a complete waste of time. Hibs should have spent >100% of their income on player wages, spent the transfer and car park income on transfer fees and achieved greater success on the pitch. Then whenever the **** hit the fan they could have formed a newco, and let HMRC and whoever else sing for the debts ran up by the old company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
I received something very similar - not attending matches and not renewing STs hurts only Hibs, but doesn't hurt Rangers, their supporters or any other club. Also tried to reassure that all SPL clubs want to do the right thing for the whole of Scottish football.
This is why so many people would be willing to turn their backs on Scottish football methinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoCarpets
The new chairman at ST J is in favour of the new proposals judging by St J fan's net site, so are their fans:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by thebakerboy
Loved this from the Bleacher report:
"Rangers FC is in serious danger of being liquidated because they have lived beyond their means for far too long, in the process distorting the market in Scotland. It has abused the tax system to give itself an unfair sporting advantage over the rest of the clubs in the SPL. It has bought players from other clubs it could not afford to pay for and had no intention of ever paying for. And the Scottish sporting establishment, governing bodies and media, want everything possible to be done to facilitate Rangers, who have destroyed the sporting integrity of the Scottish game, escaping the consequences of their self-inflicted troubles."
If we keep getting the response we have had so far to the site www.splsurvey.co.uk the idea is to send the results to all clubs so they can get a feel of what we the fans are thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
3075 responses so far in 7 hours plus a mention Reporting Scotland earlier tonight about the site and the fans response so if you know anyone on rival fans borads and can share the link then hopefully we can get more momentum.
:thumbsup:
They miss the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
The idea behind a (threatened) boycott is not to hurt Rangers but to send out a warning to Hibs that if they vote to readmit the cheating bassas they must bear the consequences.
This will take Scottish Football to a new low and discourage anyone from taking the SPL seriously. This will set a process in motion that will result in the effective demise of the league.
The SPL need to think long term and not chase every penny that they can extract from the bigot brothers in the short term.
If Rangers are liquidated; for the sake of the integrity of the SFL and the SPL they must start at the bottom.
My vote is to bin the SPL and go back to the SFA, the SPL have shown themselves to be commercially incopetent and unable to preserve sporting integrity. No way should the SPL allow themselves different rules to the rest of the SFA in my view - what's happened to Gretna should go for everyone
Two wrongs and all that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter
Can't wait to see Rangers in Division 3 like they should be next season. Maybe then Stair Park will get some people turning up.
If that's the case the they can gtf as far as I'm concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibs Class
The response from Hibs seems perfectly reasonable to me. They are saying that our fans should focus on and continue to support Hibs. What else would you expect them to say?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
Unbelievable statement from Rangers Supporters Trust last night. A boycott - that'll certainly help their team get back on its feet! And what a poor show from the SPL in "reducing the stature of Scottish football as a whole". It's not like their own club would do anything like that.
Quote:
"The board of the Rangers Supporters Trust, like other fans of the club, are not in the least surprised by the actions and timing of the SPL decision to vote on rule changes which has now further delayed a future takeover of Rangers. Given the severity of the possible sanctions, and their impact on any club who may also fall on hard times through mismanagement, it leaves us little option but to give serious consideration of calling for a boycott of away fixtures by Rangers fans next season; specifically targeting those clubs who have rushed through the proposals to punish our club with these excessive and draconian penalties.“We will discuss this in the near future with our sister organisations, the Rangers Supporters Association and Assembly, to maximise impact and collate ideas on how a boycott could be facilitated if deemed necessary.
“It may also be important to consider how these severe penalties, currently aimed at one club in particular, will impact future league and club sponsorship and have a secondary impact on all clubs, reducing the stature of Scottish football as a whole"
A boycott would actually suit some of these guys, due to the stadia capacity and ticket availability in the 3rd division. Makes sense for the (slightly) more intelligent Trust guys to try and get the steal on tickets from the knuckle-draggers.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
TraynorQuote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Been off in Ozland for his holidogs.
He's apparently seen the light!!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footbal...6908-23823231/
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Excellent. Just think of the money clubs will save on policing Rangers fans.
Fantastic idea! If no Huns are going to turn up at other grounds, makes it even easier to kick them down to Div 3. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
That is the biggest turn around I have heard of since St Paul on the road to Damascus! Hope you don't mind if I attach this to the Poll by Cheshire. Maybe the press are at long last remembering there are other clubs!
Please do, Pat!Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
It needs the widest possible circulation!:thumbsup:
Some insightful comments from a Mr. Goram in the Sun today:
"The SPL don’t half know how to kick a man when he’s down.
I’d like to say that their spanner-in-the-works statement shocked me when it was released on Wednesday.Sadly, it didn’t.The fact is NOTHING that self-serving mob ever do surprises me any more.
They've never done Rangers - or Celtic for that matter - any favours, nor are they ever likely to either."
:faf:
there's only two andy gorams
Which Goram made that comment :blah: Obviously currying favour with the OF. Maybe needing a bit of dosh from speaking engagements to pay the rent on his caravan.Quote:
Originally Posted by dan sarf
I heard Jim Traynor last night on Sportsound and he was saying the same thing as he says in his article in the Record. I hope the SPL 10 and Celtc have the bottle to punt the huns but I doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrew70
AKA grandmaster_suck, runs the swallow swallow site, a big bag o wind
:agree: and they are both fat ignorant bigotsQuote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
UEFA have noted their confidence that Scottish authorities will deal with Rangers appropriately
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17700729
It's an interesting choice of words. They are "entirely confident" that there will be "compliance with the national club licensing regulations" and in the "spirit of Uefa's club licensing and financial fair play regulations."
It feels like it may be more of a warning shot to the SFA/SPl than an expression of confidence, particularly the reference to the spirit of fair play.
Didn't want anyone accusing me of not doing my bit....:greengrin
Quote:
Dear Sirs/Madam,
As one not normally taken to this kind of communication, I hope you recognise the strength of feeling required to motivate me to write to you.
For the record, I am (despite the last few terrible seasons) proud of our club, the infrastructure developments that you have made and am convinvced of the long-term strategy you seem to be taking, even if this has inevitably reduced the quality of the team on the park (notwithstanding poor managers!).
It is precisely for this reason, however, that I am deeply concerned by the recent proposals by Mr Doncaster which, on the face of it, seem to prepare the ground for re-entry of a 'Rangers Newco' to the league.
My concern is that we (Hibs fans) have sweetened the bitter pill of our recent poor league and cup form with sound financial management and infrastructure development. This sweetner would prove very bitter if Rangers (given their alledged cheating and tax-evasion) were competing against us in the SPL next season (given the largely-held view that they should be expelled from the league).
It is an outrageous affront to the notion of sporting integrity - the ONLY reason fans are interested in sport - that this may come to pass.
Accordingly, should Hibernian F.C. vote for any proposal that allows this to happen (or indeed if it does happen, even if HFC votes against it) then I will cease all suport for the Hibs (while they remain part of the SPL).
This is not an empty gesture and it will be with a heavy heart that I make such a decision. But in life, such decisions are often the hardest to make. In my experience, they tend also to be the right ones.
I am aware that there may be 'real-politik' affecting the thinking those like yourselves who 'run' our clubs and the game in Scotland. This, however, has little or no bearing on what fans like me percieve to be the over-riding concern at this point.
How can I encourage the next generation of Hibs fans to support a system which rewards cheating and tax-evasion at the expense of Hibs and the wider principles of sporting integrity?
Yours Faithfully,
Not sure turning your back on Hibs even if they do what you want them to is"doing your bit."Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
Wow, fairplay to Traynor. He has it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
You would cease supporting Hibs even in the event they vote against the proposals, which is what your email is asking them to do?? Bizarre.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
Bit worried that I agree with Traynor here. Relegating them to the bottom of Division 3 could actually be better for Rangers than the punishments outlined by the SPL. Maybe we should be considering this prospect too?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
I think the point is that he would cease to support Scottish football, as it will have been shown up to be a sham. I would feel the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
Scottish football needs to kick Rangers down to Division 3. If Scottish football doesn't do this, Hibs will suffer. Even if they didn't vote for it themselves.
Yeah but his email was directly to Hibs. There's no point demanding Hibs do something if your support for Hibs is based on what other clubs vote for, not our own.Quote:
Originally Posted by bawheid
What about if your support was based on what Hibs vote for? Personally, I would feel much better about the whole sorry mess if Rod & co would come out and say they are 100% opposed to Phoenix clubs (not just Huns, all of them) and will vote against any measure designed to allow them direct access to the SPL.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
Edit: sorry, didn't read the above posts. d'oh! Still think RP should put his cards on the table. How are folk supposed to make up their minds about ST renewals etc if we don't even know the position of our own club, let alone the others.
That is the Celtic agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
They want Rangers to stay in the SPL but to be crippled by cash withheld and points deductions to leave the field clear for.......... Celtic.
The odds are that Rangers even with financial penalties and points deductions will still finish second.
My support for Hibs is not based on what other clubs vote for. I have an interest in football (not the cheating, corrupt type) and as such I support Hibs. But what is the point of supporting a team that is not as good as it could be, when another team in the league can steal money from me and you (tax) to fund players that come out and beat us - time and again?Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
If that is your idea of sport then your are welcome to it.
Hence my email.
I want Hibs to do the right thing - I said as much. But if Hibs vote against the Newco, yet the Newco still enters the league and beats us every match, then how does that make the problem above go away? It doesn't - hence my point about not supporting a game that is corrupt.
I hope this clarifies my position.
Towards the end of the Article Traynor suggests Rangers can win promotions easily in the SFL and " hoard " the season ticket money for an assualt on the SPL when they return.Quote:
Originally Posted by pentlando
Any New-Co will have no previous losses to set against the vast fortunes Traynor believes will be accrued in the lower divisions and every penny profit would be subject to Corporation Tax at 30%.
Unless of course they intend to stiff the Tax - Man again. :greengrin
the buns would claw back any -10 points deduction within the first 5/6 games, and any SPL money deducted(i've saw figures of approx 1.7m) would be clawed back with two high profile friendlies, if i was a betting man(which i'm not) i would safely bet on the buns winning the league :aok: next season :(
Surely you can understand that the point is not that I am 'turning my back on Hibs' but 'turning my back on the SPL'?Quote:
Originally Posted by flash
But of course, we should just keep paying our hard earned cash to support a system rigged against us.
How silly of me - pass the vaseline when you're done....
You appear to be missing something here.Quote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
The reason Rangers got into this mess was that they could not compete financially with Celtic who have a 10,000 more seats and usually at least 5,000 higher gates. They fiddled taxes, paid no-one and ran up debts to try and cover this up.
They will not be competing in Europe for three seasons at least so Celtic have a further potential income stream. Celtic will be seeded in two qualifying rounds for the Champions' League in the comparatively tranquil 'champions section of the draw. They can expect to face the likes HJK Helsinki or Molde in the third qualifying round and nothing harder than the Swiss Champions' in the playoff round. So Celtic should have a good chance at the group stages and vast quantities of cash.
That will all leave Celtic with a huge financial advantage over Rangers especially with the claw backs.
So a Newco would suddenly be able to pull 10 points back on Celtic in 5-6 games and win the SPL?
You'd still need all the police, they'd be needed outside at the Huns "picket line".Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeTortolanoFanClub
Can you imagine those dirty unwashed ****my tramps screaming **** at any Huns fan that dared to oppose the boycott.....that'd be like being called ugly at a Stevie Fulton lookalike contest!
ok i should have made that clearer, they would claw back the -10 point deficit against every team bar sellick, then all they would have to do is win there games against sellick... which is pefectly feasable yes ? even when they do go 'all legal' and start paying the taxman etc etc they will still get millions in investment, full houses etc etc, even with the off-field problems they have had the last few months they would still have only been 8 points behind sellick just now(without the -10 deduction they got) if they didn't have a couple of bad results they STILL could have won this seasons league, obviously i understand the points you make above, the loss of income from european games will be offset with glamour friendlies, lets just wait and see the league positions in exactly 12 months from now :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Celtic gave Rangers a fifteen point lead and beat them easily regardless of the ten point penaltyQuote:
Originally Posted by cabbageandribs1875
There is little appetite to attend 'glamour friendlies' these days. If it was that easy they would have been doing it in the past.
I don't disagree about catching the rest after 5-6 matches but I can't see them winning the SPL for a year or two.
The Newco will have next to no players as I suspect that a good number will be off as their contracts will revert to the SPL or be nullified. They need to sort things out before they can start signing. It will be a major task to even put a team on the park for next season.
They may not even have a stadium if Craig Whyte contests the ownership issue regarding Ibrox.
on the contrary jg, they got an attendance of 47,521 just two weeks ago against AC milan, i'm not quite sure the whole story regarding that game, but i believe it went from being originally in aid of charity....to instead helping out the forces of darkness :greengrin :agree: but anyway, i do hope you're predictions come true :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Well in your email you said it was, you said if Hibs voted against the proposals but they were voted through anyway you would cease all support for Hibs. I could understand you saying if Hibs vote for the proposals I'll not support Hibs anymore. You've basically given the board an ultimatum on a situation they do not have 100% control over. I don't think that's fair on the board.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieHibby
Personally supporting Hibs is ingrained in me, I think we've all been aware over time that the situations at Rangers and latterly Hearts wasn't fair, but we kept going back. I've already bought my season ticket and would have done so even if I knew in advance Rangers were getting away scot free.
Everything in life is corrupt. There is, and will always be, ways to cheat at everything. When we punish one thing another measure will simply be exploited. Corruption in sport will never go away, all we can do is try best deal with it when we can. I think we have to realise that in reality, the punishment given to Rangers will rest inbetween no punishment and the most severe punishment. The SPL resolutions are probably near enough that. Removing support for Hibs isn't going to help punish Rangers in any way at all. Fair enough if you feel you can just switch off your loyalty to Hibs and interest in football over the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
This time next year a team called Rangers will be second in the SPL, miles in front of the next club.
I don't really think that anyone seriously thinks otherwise.
:grr:
Sadly true. The footballing, political and media authorities will ensure this is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
Another sad truth: as the result of the above, attendances at the other ten clubs will decline to the point where most of them are no longer viable.
You're making the assumption that the SFL would be willing to accept a Newco Rangers. The SPL can't impose that and surely it would be better for the SFL to admit one of the other clubs that would apply for a vacancy as it would have a longer term interest in making the SFL work. The junior grade would still be available for the Newco.Quote:
Originally Posted by bawheid
I feel your pain but I don't think what you say is a foregone conclusion. If - and it remains a big if - with HMRC on the case (no pun intended), UEFA waching closely, the fact that Whyte will not go without a fight (and owns Ibrox/Murray Park), the cancellation/reversion of the players' contracts on liquidation, the lack of revenue from Europe, etc.,etc. there's still a fair bit of water to go under the bridge, I reckon.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
Even if they get parachuted in to the SPL as a newco, they'll still not have their troubles to seek. Obviously I wish they'd die but I think if they do survive they'll have a harder time of it than you might imagine.
Disagree, Mr Rebus!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnrebus
jgl07 at 4922 above was on the mark though he could have gone further.
There will be a real mass exodus from HunsNewco over the summer and next year's team will be made up of half the U-19 team most likely and a rump of current players. Many teams gave RFC a hard time this year and they will be licking their lips at the prospect of humping the Huns. Of course, now that one J Traynor has 'seen the light' maybe they won't be in the SPL after all!:devil:
None of the three bidders have any real cash to make a splash in the transfer market and HunsNewco will have to make swingeing staff cuts.:agree:
More from the man at Ch4
http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...-football/1134
Quote:
Part 1 – The Case of Alex Salmond
One thing’s quietly emerging if you probe enough – and that’s the ever-so-gentlemanly turf war being fought over Ibrox, well away from Ibrox.
The Scottish Football Association boss Stewart Regan broke cover to me three days back, responding to questions from Channel 4 News about why Alex Salmond phoned HMRC on 11 Jan to ask about the Rangers’ tax position.
Mr Regan made it clear he did not want to get into specifics on this. But equally made it plain there is a heightened sense at the SFA’s Hampden Park HQ that Scotland’s politicians have rolled their tanks onto the SFA’s lawn. The SFA want them off.
He wrote:
“I have already spoken to the Sports Minister, Shona Robinson some weeks ago about the Scottish Government’s involvement in football matters and reminded her of the need to let football govern and regulate its own affairs without interference, especially in light of FIFA’s views on this issue.”
FIFA’s views on the issue of political interference into football clubs being very public and widely known.
Mr Salmond’s people vehemently deny it was political “interference” The First Minister’s Office say the 11 Jan call:
“…centred on securing a settlement to enable Rangers to meet their obligations to the taxpayer and continue in business.”
They say they thus acted in the public interest. That’s that. No story.
But in football politics things are rarely so straightforward. Clearly Mr Regan, still relatively new at the SFA, sees political interference and is concerned enough to write to the Sports Minister, asking for it to stop please.
Moreover, what matters is how UEFA, European Football’s governing body, sees actions like these? Michel Platini has made great hay during his tenure as UEFA boss, of financial fair play. In public UEFA can do little more than pledge support to the SFA and Rangers. In private they are angry and embarrassed at the unfolding Rangers mess. Rangers, frankly, is a big blot on their landscape.
Not least, because the club was of course the first in Scotland to get a licence in 2003 for – amongst other things – financial good housekeeping, when as we now know it was as much a casino as a football club. All this in now unfolding, UEFA know and they are unamused.
And along with financial fair play comes political interference which has seen FIFA – football’s world governing body – take strong action against some member countries with meddling politicians.
The question of Scottish politicians getting involved with both the taxman and administrators over Rangers was described to me as “difficult and complex” by UEFA’s press office on the record. So difficult and complex that I’ve waited three days to get any answer and have thus far failed. Away from their press office one official spoke on condition of anonymity and said “we are concerned, we have all this in our sights but the key agency here is the SFA”. Clearly the SFA do too.
Even though Mr Salmond has spoken about this phone call in a TV interview with Al Jazeera and it’s been reported in the press, there’s still great official secrecy shrouding what was actually said, which to this day has not been cleared up.
According to a recent Freedom of Information request, details relating to the call cannot be made public according to Holyrood officials because it would “prejudice substantially” relations between Scottish and UK governments.
Yet, a couple of lines later, the same official – Patrick Berry – who wrote that, claims the information wouldn’t greatly add anything to public knowledge.
Well Patrick – which is it? Either it’s substantially prejudicial or it’s not going to add to our knowledge but it certainly can’t be both.
Curiouser and curiouser.
As for the First Minister, his staff quite rightly point out that he’s spoken to HMRC with regard to other companies in trouble. But how many of them potentially owed the taxpayer £75 million?
Equally the argument that RFC is somehow another Ravenscraig, a victim of external forces and circumstance where the First Minister must act, would surely be open to question by some?
RFC owes Big Tax already. It could soon owe Vast Tax. RFC created the mess RFC is in. Nobody else. And I can tell you first hand that UEFA is deeply unhappy at the mess. As, no doubt is Alex Salmond.
If RFC lose the Big Tax Case many honest taxpayers will say the last thing it deserves is survival. Holyrood would say what matters is the best deal for the taxpayer. And so would the HMRC.
So Alex Salmond’s damned whatever he does. Fail to act and you look like you don’t care. Act and you’ve the minefield of national and international football politics to contend with.
To say nothing of the fans, divided as ever.
And here's an update from D&P
Quote:
Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "Following discussions with three parties bidding to purchase the football club, we can confirm that all three parties have informed us today they wish to remain in the sale process."However, following the information supplied by us to bidders in relation to proposed new rules on penalties for insolvent clubs within the SPL, there have been changes made to the conditions attached to bids.
Among the new conditions are requests from parties who now, before committing further, wish access to the football authorities in order to seek greater clarity on the proposed rule changes. We hope to provide Rangers supporters with a further update next week and will continue to make every effort to reach the point where a preferred bidder can be announced.
We are keen to conclude an offer as soon as possible and certainly we would hope that this does not mean that finalisation is delayed until April 30, 2012.
Back from my travels :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by grunt
I have only skimmed over the events of the last few days.......and have no view on them yet.
However, what strikes me is the extension of the process which has been caused by the SPL stuff. I think it is significant that D and P say they want things finalised before the 30th.
That says to me that they are increasingly concerned about RFC's cash position. As I understood it, the wage deals enabled them to budget to the end of the season..... in the hope that a takeover could be done before that.
If they have to wait until May, some players' wages may go back up... some players may be allowed to walk. I don't know if RFC would have the cash to last long in the close season.
Shame.
Think you're right, Bob - but pray you're wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dashing Bob S
Its arguable whether any of them are viable at the moment Bob, never mind in a years time.