To be honest I didn't expect anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
Printable View
To be honest I didn't expect anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
Advertising Standards Authority recently ruled they are the same club
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudi...DJ_224406.aspx
Lots of lower league clubs use trialists pretty extensively in the early season so this ruling was never about McCoist & co. However if he genuinely said he would lose games because of it then that's ludicrous. He has a full time squad who benefit from the best training facilities around and he's up against teams who train twice a week at night. The only real threat in that league will be Dunfermline whose squad are mainly kids.
McCoist is an absolute bluffer.
The rule about allowing trialists to play in league games isn't for the benefit of Sevco. It's an existing SFL rule which the smaller clubs in the lower divisions have asked to be transferred into the new SPFL.
The part time clubs work with small squads - they can't afford to have many people not in the 16 fielded in a game - so are vulnerable to finding themselves short of players due to injury or suspension. Trialists can be used as a form of short term contract. They also like to get a look at a potential new recruit in a match rather than just in a couple of evening training sessions.
The situation now is exactly what it would have been if the reconstruction hadn't gone ahead. In SFL division 2 clubs always could field a limited number of trialists so the rule isn't there to help one particular club.
Whether the rule existed in the old league or not they are supposedly under a 'transfer embargo :hilarious ' they shouldnae be allowed tae use this rule tae get round that. They are hardly a small struggling lower division outfit with the players they have now that they signed before the farce of a 'transfer embargo :hilarious ' started in the 1st place. Does anybody (other than fat sally of course) really believe they will struggle for a few weeks in the 2nd division with the players they have now. It's still a ****in' joke that the 'transfer embargo :hilarious ' started efter the transfer windae shut. What a punishment that has turned out tae be, that'll ****in' teach them. :rolleyes:
Dan, it doesn't really matter re the Trialists. Rangers are being treated exactly as Montrose or Albion Rovers would have been. You can't change things to make things more difficult just because its Rangers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
As I said earlier, they won't struggle and McCoist is an absolute bluffer.
I really don't care about them. I'm just enjoying the fresh air of the SPL without them until summer 2015.
They were very keen tae change things bending, rewriting and inventing new rules tae allow the stickies tae play in tae the 3rd division in the 1st place, funny it cannae work the other way. If that rule is tae be carried in tae the new set up and a new setup can have new rules it could include a clause the would prevent teams under embargo form using it as a loophole tae get round the ban. Of course that'll never happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Total farce
Allowed tae sign players before the transfer windae closes and the ban comes in tae force.
And now allowed tae use players they intend tae sign as trialists before they're allowed tae actually register them.
****in' joke. transfer embargo :hilarious
Any signing ban should also extend to playing trialists in competitive games or else there is a massive loophole that makes a ban pointless.
This is about setting the correct precedent and not about Sevco Huns. For example the Yams could use this to field a series of trialists next season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
We know that one the 'peepul' McCoist demanded to know names of deciding this 'ban' was a Rangers season book holder in true Andy Davis style.
The whole Sevco/T'Rangers farce has been an exercise in intimidation, corruption and shameless cowardice that goes right to the heart of the games administration. Essentially Scottish football's credibility and reputation, including Scotland as a whole, has been sacrificed on the alter of Sevco Rangers and their horde. They are a new club and company with no corporate history, that's what Insolvency Law says. 141 old years my arse.
Perhaps but where else were they going to go? Like a dose of herpes, Rangers were never going to go away in one foul form or another. .Clubs in our league and Neil Doncaster were hoping they were going to be dumped in division 1 only the SFL wouldn't play ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Desperate Dan
I honestly feel that if/when they do get back to whatever our top-league is called by then - THAT'S when 'Armageddon' might take place !!. Fans are enjoying it just now, it might not have improved or got any cheaper but it's just so much nicer and safer without 'Them' - the league has a sort of 'Clean' feeling about it, less filth or morons with a '17th-century mind-set' and songs (well, apart from their traditional 'Business-Partners' !!) - all-round just a better atmosphere. Can you imagine taking your family, kids to a game involving a set of supporters with the world's biggest 'Chip on it's shoulders' and whose websites are full of 'We will have our revenge when we get back' ??Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyM_1875
Allowing lower league clubs to field trialists is sensible and the right thing to do. We can't have res changed just because we think Sevco are getting some sort of advantage. If you look at the restrictions placed in the use of trialists then they are not really gaining much. If the other clubs in their lowly division are happy with that, and it seems they are, then what's the problem?
But if a player is already signed to register with the Huns on September 1st, how can he be deemed to be on trial?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
It's an abuse of the rules IMO.
I'm intrigued as to how this proposed 'revenge' will manifest itself, as any form of boycott will be largely ineffectual. Most clubs have adapted to life without sevco quite comfortably, and their absence at future away games will be welcomed by decent fans countrywideQuote:
Originally Posted by Deansy
So should we totally redefine what a traillist is, possibly to the detriment of other clubs and at some expense, just to further punish Rangers? They are acting within the rules of the league they are in and the the other clubs seem fine with it . As it doesn't affect us why should we be getting so uptight about it other than to satisfy the desire to keep kicking Sevco?Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli
Lower league clubs have used the trialist method for years, i'm just happy to see sevco using this rule as you cant play trialists in the SPL. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Nicky Clark and the like are contracted Huns-in-waiting, not genuine trialists. That's the point here — nothing to do with a desire to kick them when they're down.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
I don't get your point about hurting other clubs since addressing this loophole would only impact those under registration embargoes (ie those deemed worthy of punishment).
According to the rules they are trialists, whether we like it or not. Changing the rules just to stop Sevco playing them would simply be vindictive. Have the other clubs in their division cried foul?Quote:
Originally Posted by Makaveli
The other teams need the cash the hordes will bring. Kicking up a fuss could lead to boycotts etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Then the rules should be changed and at the set up of a new organisation is the perfect time. What is the point of a transfer embargo when there are rules that allow you tae get round it? The transfer embargo against them was already a ridiculous farce in that it was imposed after the transfer windae shut and they'd been allowed tae sign all the players they needed. What the **** was the point of that other than tae let them off the hook? It was supposed tae be a punishment, instead it's turned in tae a ****in' joke. If the yams end up in the 3rd division will they be allowed tae use trialists tae subvert any embargo placed against them? What a load of ***** and time it was changed. If they cannae get out the division with the players they have then they stay there for another season, that's the punishment bit surely?Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
There isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by overDrive
The only confirmation you would ever get from UEFA that they are the same club or not is if they qualify to play in Europe within 5 years of them last playing Europe (ie they play in Europe in 2016/17 or earlier). Because that would show whether or not they are allocated the club coefficient points gained by the oldco in the seasons before they went bust.
if Rangers had any integrity they wouldnt even consider playing then as trial......wait, what am I saying....
Then make the signing ban apply to trialists as well - it won't affect the vast majority of teams because they're well enough run not to get a ban in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Finally some sanity from the MSM. Britney gets there in the end.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile...4acd2c17f7d8be
The yam meltdown thread is catching up on this one :greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by NumberSeven
25 pages away :wink:
Just waiting patiently for Whyte to take the tribute act to court and get his money. There will be blood, and it'll be hun and not fenian!
Views have outstripped this thread by over half a millionQuote:
Originally Posted by NumberSeven
Probably thanks to our yam guests, keeps the advertisement funds rolling in. The Huns just aren't as generous in the slightest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Hackett
Yep! 400,000 yams would make a difference :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by HH_MYB