Davis signed for Southampton.
Printable View
Davis signed for Southampton.
Glad you picked up on that. That's not my argument. There are plenty of others on here saying that they are a totally new club so should start in SFL3. The same people then argue SFL1 would be insufficient punishment for years of cheating. (By the way, there is nothing in the rules stopping a club applying to any division. )Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
I am accepting the reality of the situation. Whether they are Oldco, Newco, Sevco or Seb Coe they will still be Rangers. Do you seriously think they will be thought of as anything but Rangers in a couple of years? Allowing entry to SFL1 subject to accepting the punishment applicable to the wrongs done by Murray, Whyte and co is a perfectly valid negotiating tool. I am not saying that is wholly desirable, but it may turn out to be the best option. If they are empatically NOT Rangers and go in to SFL3 then they will effectively be escaping any punishment. Three years of low costs and high income will see them stronger than ever. Still, if thats what you want. :greengrin
Don't mistake me for part of the 'donkey pack.'' The man is a buffoon and should go, his incompetence has caused further damage but those who employ him have more questions to answer. They will be delighted that he is the main fall guy here.
According to Longmuir, there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...rox-newco.html
"Longmuir also revealed details of the voting process that will be applied. The first vote will decide if the SFL can accept Rangers, with a simple majority required.
If that ballot is in favour of a Rangers application, it will be, according to Longmuir, “supplemented by further resolutions that we would have to implement to change our rules."
Not been reading every post so apologies if already covered but surely now that Super Sally has stated he thinks der hun should start off in L3, the problem is solved?
It would be if Sally had any say in the matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonnyboy
For "say", read "financial involvement up to his nads."
Maybe I misread another statement which said that whilst there was no precedent in joining anywhere other than at the bottom there was nothing specified in the rules to prevent it. If i am wrong just add it to the bollox I have already spouted on this thread. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Just seems that all this bending over by the powers that be could be eased by erm lubricating a way into League 3 :wink:
Oh, that will be this pronouncement from Longmuir on June 17th :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...-Longmuir.html
If they get into div1 on the basis that they're rangers, and bring in money, needed there to secure sky etc etc then fine - they take sanctions.
If they're apply and start at the bottom, like any new club, then fine - no sanctions. and we'll take every oportunity to remind them they're sevco5088 fc, not huns fc.
regardless of the above, the EBT dual contract pish need sorted out and dealt with. history books to be amended.
So that 7-0 humping at Ipox, when Gazza was playing never happened....Praise the lord....:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Looks like more bollox from me then. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
This was taken from the widely applauded Clyde statement on the matter.
Quote:
There were a few new things learned in the meeting, not least that the rules of the SFL would allow any club accepted into the SFL, by a simple majority, to be placed in any division. The rules do not state, nor imply, that they must join at the bottom tier, only custom and practice around good governance and integrity has seen teams join in the bottom tier. ,
Sorry, the new company getting into the 1st division would not be fine, it would be wholly unacceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
If they're going to be playing league football next season, they MUST be in the 3rd division.
Not mistaking you for a donkey :greengrin and understand that you are coming from a kinda realpolitik/negotiating place. But it's a peculiarly donkeyesque position to insist that everyone has to negotiate at all with der Hun. They may well be back in a position of power in an unspecified number of years - meanwhile, they should take whatever comes their way. They've already, to their amazement, been telt to GTF from the SPL. No reason why they can't also be telt to GTF from SFL1 (think this has halfway happened already). If they are further telt to GTF altogether from the SFL this year, and the rest of Scottish fitba gets on with re-organising itself, well and good.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
As a side issue, there's a much bigger picture here which imo shouldn't get lost in the detailed argy-bargy about the difference between SFL1 and SFL3. HunFC is a vile, shameful institution, and will want to continue/re-emerge as a vile, shameful institution. If you want to be introducing realpolitik to trump strict fitba rules, then howsabout embracing the possibility that diminishing HunFC's stature in any way available, even if only temporarily, is an unequivocal social good.
https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/s...20198114918401
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Stewart Regan declares that Andy Murray will lose on Sunday unless Sevco FC is admitted to SFL1.
:greengrin
I totally agree. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
Well done Andy Murray. I'm sure the rest of the Murray clan will be right behind him in this their annus horribilis.
Sanctions could be expulsion from the league (EBTs/dual contracts/bring game into disrepute)Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibee
Payments to all the clubs and businesses they've stiffed.
Payments back of all the monies illegally won because of dual contracts and awarded to the clubs appropriately (given that rangers would have lost those games 3-0 (?))
Points deductions for the next x seasons for going into liquidation.
Barred from the SPL for the next x season (ok i made that one up, but why not?)
I dont agree, or think that they should be in Div1, i'm just saying that if they're there because they were 'rangers' then they need to accept any and all punishments that go with it.
TBH if they don't end up in Div 3 (or lower) then I wont be supporting an SPL club OR and SFL club next season because the games fixed.
Hear,hear!:na na:Quote:
Originally Posted by jonty
I'll be taking up golf - sitting in a club house, watching it piss with rain on the greens :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by calmac12000
So basically it's the pub for you.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by jonty
Actually - that would save on clubs, club membership, stupid trousers and green fees.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
sorted :not worth
I'd hate tae disappoint :wink: :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
A'body paying attention to the poll? Seems "Opposed but will continue to support the game" has gone from around 30% to over 35% since Thursday. Some people must be happy that there has been something concrete
We are all Hibs fans or we wouldnt be here, 15000+ posts later
:flag::flag:
As long as the 1-0 win at Ibrox earlier in the same season will still count.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn
All of us that were there will have to go for some sort of memory wiping treatment, like in Total Recall :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn
I'm sure the proposal from the SFL included Sevco having to pay all of Old Rangers' football related debts and a three year ban from Europe but I cant find anything now. Maybe I'm going mad.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
I think these sanctions, or heavier ones preferably, would simply be made a condition of entry to the first division. This hasn't happened before so I'm not sure they could challenge anything if it was made clear that these conditions are a trade-off and the matter considered closed.
If people tried to sanction them for entering the third then that might get messy.
The whole issue for me is the fact that the old firm are split now and there is nothing holding back real change in the SPL. Lets be honest, the big one is gate money and every club in a league containing even one of the old firm would jump at the chance of taking a 75/25 split in season ticket and walk up money. The SPL clubs can vote this through regardless and Celtic can like it or lump it. The OF and the media wont like it but it can be countered by looking at where football fans come from and where they go to watch football. This is merely balancing things up for the "good of the game".
If Rangers are in div3, these SPL changes can still be made but what about all the proposals for reconstruction of the SFL? I've a feeling the governing bodies will simply forget about any of those ideas as they were merely sweeteners to get Sevco up near the top and save their bacon.
I'm just scared that Celtic and Sevco will be back at the top again winning the league by 30 points in three years and nothing will have changed. We have to vote through a share in gate money as that's the only thing that will have any effect. Any other proposed change wont go far enough...and we need real change to increase competition.
Found this quite interesting? See what you think.
http://saintinasia.wordpress.com/201...are-to-europe/
Was just about to post this link. I think this is a very important contribution to the debate about finances of Scottish football. Provides statistical evidence of the bullying etc as well as incompetence of Messrs Doncaster Regan etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Www1875hfc
Haven't seen this posted on here, apologies if I've missed it.
Thank goodness there are some honest and straight-talking Chairmen in the SFL.
http://www.raithrovers.net/3998/sfl-...-july-2012.htm
Quote:
The club has this evening received the notice of resolutions to be voted on next Friday and we are told to expect an information pack at some time next week. We hope that this pack will present a more balanced report to SFL member clubs than they have so far received.At last Tuesday’s meeting, financial information provided by Neil Doncaster showed an unrealistic worst case scenario. It showed the impact of potential total loss of 3 TV contracts, all of which had been inexplicably agreed on the basis that the broadcaster could walk away if either Rangers or Celtic were not in the SPL. His information did not, however, set out the potentially positive impact of negotiating replacement contracts with other broadcasters or alternatively the much mentioned possibility of launching SPL TV (which we understand could have been launched within a matter of months).
Mr Doncaster warned SFL members that if these contracts were indeed lost, this would mean the annual payment to the SFL under the Settlement Agreement would either be greatly reduced or not paid at all. Raith Rovers FC believes this not to be the case, and that the SPL would remain both contractually obliged and able to pay the £1.9m – £2m annual sum, even in that worst case scenario. We call upon the SFL Board to clarify its view on this vital point urgently, before club boards finalise their positions on these important votes.
We are also concerned that there has not as yet been an opportunity for clubs to receive legal advice from the SFL and/or debate the potential consequences on the smooth running of our league in the event that the Courts are asked to annull/strike down any of the corporate transactions that have led to the current position of Sevco Scotland Ltd as owners of certain assets of the Rangers oldco. Indeed, the position as regards the potential sanctions to be applied by the Scottish FA via its Appellate Tribunal has also still to be bottomed out. In summary, we remain concerned that the SPL clubs have overwhelmingly voted to pass on this potential time bomb, which may yet explode once passed to the SFL’s jurisdiction, and we are being asked to accept this new company into membership, worse still in our top division.
Without all of this information, and the opportunity for clubs to further discuss these issues on a fully informed basis amongst themselves before the formal SGM, in a similar format to last Tuesday’s meeting, we are concerned that the fairness and transparency of the process itself is at risk of being compromised.
Raith Rovers FC will consider its stance with regard to attendance at this meeting once we receive the information from the SFL.
That is a belter of a statement from Raith, well done them