Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[KiddA]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He sums up his own article perfectly

'The knuckle draggers- always the ones who make the most noise- have succeeded in making their voice heard.'

Craig Burley is the king Fud in all the kingdom of fuddery.

[Stantons Angel]

I am completely taken aback by the sheer nerve this guy has in calling the club chairmen the names he has.

I have passed this on to friends for their opinions and i hope someone has the bottle to take him on.

All that because he needs publicity.

Well he has got it now.

What a pure and utter moron of a man!!!!

[jane_says]

And talking of knuckle-draggers Craig..........

[phantomscotsman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And talking of knuckle-draggers Craig..........

Guys a total c**k...

[PaulC]

"I’ve heard comments from clubs like Cowdenbeath, Peterhead insisting they must start from scratch in the Third – who are these people and how are they qualified to make a decision that will affect clubs 10 times their size?"


So what qualifications did David Murray have to run a football club into the ground......what qualifications did Craig Whyte have to run a derelict club even further into shame and disgrace and who says that the jokers now owning Rangers are any more qualified to do the job. The guys on the boards of these smaller clubs are successful business men and are only making the decisions that those further up the football ladder (i.e Donkey Doncaster and Regan) are too afraid to make themselves.

What a complete pr*ck Burley is and should be made to apologise for that shameful drivel

[Aldo]

The guy is complete and total **** Witt . Calling the guys that run lower league teams muppets. That for me is disrespectful and to be honest expected from an ex OF player.

So they get 200 the principal of the matter being their clubs are run in the correct manner cos that's the only way they will survive.

The lower league chairman are really in theory cutting their noses off to spite their faces cos deep down they know that there would and will be a loss in revenue should they vote NO however integrity is the name of the game and well done to then.

As for burley. **** off back under the rock you crawled from you prize A dick.

[KiddA]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I am completely taken aback by the sheer nerve this guy has in calling the club chairmen the names he has.

I have passed this on to friends for their opinions and i hope someone has the bottle to take him on.

All that because he needs publicity.

Well he has got it now.

What a pure and utter moron of a man!!!!

I agree, this should not be left alone, he should be sacked for this, totally out of order with some of his comments.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The rules are quite clear Stevie (99.2 I think) that, if a vacancy arises in the SFL, it is in the bottom league.

That's the point though, the respective boards of the SFA/SFL/SPL are bypassing the rules. They've already stated that it's not in the rules that it has to be the bottom league and that they COULD go straight into Division 1 if they wanted to.

The wording of the first vote (i) could easily be used by the SFA/SFL to get what they want.
"You all said yes to allowing Rangers to play in the league in 2012/13. The only place available now, at such short notice, is Division 1. We'll put Rangers in Division 1 (regardless of the 2nd vote)."

The SFA/SFL/SPL have already shown that they will happily tell lies to get what they want, so the wording for vote (i) needs to be clear that it's Division 3 (not even "lowest" division as again they could twist it to "lowest division possible" when they stitch everyone up).

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the point though, the respective boards of the SFA/SFL/SPL are bypassing the rules. They've already stated that it's not in the rules that it has to be the bottom league and that they COULD go straight into Division 1 if they wanted to.

The wording of the first vote (i) could easily be used by the SFA/SFL to get what they want.
"You all said yes to allowing Rangers to play in the league in 2012/13. The only place available now, at such short notice, is Division 1. We'll put Rangers in Division 1 (regardless of the 2nd vote)."

The SFA/SFL/SPL have already shown that they will happily tell lies to get what they want, so the wording for vote (i) needs to be clear that it's Division 3 (not even "lowest" division as again they could twist it to "lowest division possible" when they stitch everyone up).

Longmuir said completely the opposite a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...-Longmuir.html

"“It would be a newco scenario and the only way we could accommodate any new application would be to create a gap in the Third Division through the play-offs with teams shuffling up,” said Longmuir

“We would then judge every case on its own merits. There would be no provision for any newco Rangers to go into the First Division rather than the Third Division.”

[Emerald]

He MUST be wanting the SFL to vote against newco by writing this His article should be pinned on the wall of every Scottish football club director until after the vote and then used to wipe their erses with. THAT my friends is exactly the kind of west coast, weegie, old firm arrogant pr1ck that we should all remember to bury in the past when the great Rangers are no more.

[Pretty Boy]

Reading that again I'm actually stunned how hugely disrespectful it is.

I know a few guys involved in the lower leagues and at senior and junior level, particularly at Spartans, and the jobs these guys hold down in their 'real' lives more than qualify them to run the business side of football clubs.

Burleys attitude is just typical of what I'd expect from OF apologists, completely deluded about how important or interesting they are to non OF fans. I've got a few acquaintances who are currant buns and they are genuinely perplexed as to why other clubs don't want to see them in the SPL next year. The general argument seems to be 'but we are Rangers', that's it really.

Burley and the other jokers that pass for the football press in Scotland would probably get a massive shock if they ever extracted their heads from the rectum of the OF for long enough.

[virtualhibby]

A bit of reverse phsycology? Did he really think the SFL chairman would change their minds because if these comments, or was he thinking this will make them radge and provoke a reaction to force D3 at best?

Ex celtic chump remember.

Sent from the commode in my listening room.

[greenginger]

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...ng-bodies/2235


Regan now saying Old Ranger's SFA membership is being transferred to Sevco F C .

Is this specifically against SFA Articles of Association Rule 16. Memberships are only transferable within a group for " solvent reconstruction ".

I don't think even Regan can think the Dead Huns were solvent.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Longmuir said completely the opposite a couple of weeks ago.

That's my point.

The goalposts have been moved so many times they're not even on the pitch anymore!!

The wording in part (ii) is so skewed to taking the voting options away from the clubs and handing it to "corrupt" boards it is beyond belief. That is why I reckon the wording for part (i) has deliberately left out "Division 3", and it needs to be rectified before any vote.
It would be a very niaive chairman that made the assumption that part (i) is a guaranteed Division 3 entry.

[ScottB]

I definitely agree with others, would that transfer be enough for them to be seen as the same business and thus have creditors come looking for their cash?

[Saorsa]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...ng-bodies/2235


Regan now saying Old Ranger's SFA membership is being transferred to Sevco F C .

Is this specifically against SFA Articles of Association Rule 16. Memberships are only transferable within a group for " solvent reconstruction ".

I don't think even Regan can think the Dead Huns were solvent.

He'll no be worried about that, he can just bend it, break it or completely re-write it.

[Seveno]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the meeting was televised. Firstly, to give transparency but secondly, what marvellous entertainment as the 'diddy clubs' revolt. Even better if Donkey and Regan are there to be verbally savaged.


Edit: Delete that word 'verbally'.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Regan now saying Old Ranger's SFA membership is being transferred to Sevco F C .

I don't have a problem with this.

It means that the SFA can punish Sevco for Oldco's misdemeanours. and possibly hold them liable for footballing debts. The footballing debts (especially outwith Scotland) is probably something that has worried the SFA, for fear of FIFA involvement and a potential backlash.

I suspect that it's also something that the SFA could force Sevco to do, to get past the 3 years accounts issue that has been touched on before.

[Lungo--Drom]

Without disrespecting your commode or the poo within it, I wonder if you happened to see the utter ****ing piece of stinking **** Burley lurking in it whilst wiping your derrier? :)

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A bit of reverse phsycology? Did he really think the SFL chairman would change their minds because if these comments, or was he thinking this will make them radge and provoke a reaction to force D3 at best?

Ex celtic chump remember.

Sent from the commode in my listening room.

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I definitely agree with others, would that transfer be enough for them to be seen as the same business and thus have creditors come looking for their cash?

No...it's a different company

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't have a problem with this.

It that means that the SFA can punish Sevco for Oldco's misdemeanours. and possibly hold them liable for footballing debts. The footballing debts (especially outwith Scotland) is probably something that has worried the SFA, for fear of FIFA involvement and a potential backlash.

I suspect that it's also something that the SFA could force Sevco to do, to get past the 3 years accounts issue that has been touched on before.

that's my take on it....transfer the licence and the history .


Again...it's only one year's accounts.....which Sevco don't have.

[LeighLoyal]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't have a problem with this.It that means that the SFA can punish Sevco for Oldco's misdemeanours. and possibly hold them liable for footballing debts. The footballing debts (especially outwith Scotland) is probably something that has worried the SFA, for fear of FIFA involvement and a potential backlash.I suspect that it's also something that the SFA could force Sevco to do, to get past the 3 years accounts issue that has been touched on before.

Doesn't this mean they have a bigger shout of keeping their history? Sounds like a pro hun move to me. The cheated trophy's could have been stripped from oldco. So Regan wants to parachute Sevco into SFL 1 and allow them to carry on trading as the oldco in all but name. I'd be quite happy to see their history lost, oldco stripped of the cheated gongs and Sevco in SFL 3. That is what SHOULD happen. No doubt the hun loving barbarians in suits have other ideas.

[ScottB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't have a problem with this.

It that means that the SFA can punish Sevco for Oldco's misdemeanours. and possibly hold them liable for footballing debts. The footballing debts (especially outwith Scotland) is probably something that has worried the SFA, for fear of FIFA involvement and a potential backlash.

I suspect that it's also something that the SFA could force Sevco to do, to get past the 3 years accounts issue that has been touched on before.

But they won't will they. If the plan is have them back in the SPL by next season, there isn't going to be any further punishments beyond fines or suspended sentences. Perhaps a totally pointless suspension for a season, suspended as long as they don't do it again etc.

[degenerated]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He'll no be worried about that, he can just bend it, break it or completely re-write it.

Or blow it oot his @rse as far as I am concerned.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Doesn't this mean they have a bigger shout of keeping their history? Sounds like a pro hun move to me. The cheated trophy's could have been stripped from oldco. So Regan wants to parachute Sevco into SFL 1 and allow them to carry on trading as the oldco in all but name. I'd be quite happy to see their history lost, oldco stripped of the cheated gongs and Sevco in SFL 3. That is what SHOULD happen. No doubt the hun loving barbarians in suits have other ideas.

Possibly, but it does allow other actions to be taken as well.

I don't think an SFA membership transfer would see them parachuted, I'm pretty sure they needed the SPL share for that.

I also think there is more chance of trophies being stripped with the SFA transfer than without it. Kill Oldco dead and you kill any/all outstanding punishments, including the stripping of trophies and footballing debts.
Transfering the SFA membership allows "Rangers" to keep their history (a bitter pill to take), but also allows the SFA to continue with their EBT investigations and the CoS ruling to refer back to the tribunal, and punish as they see fit.

Let's be honest here, regardless of what we say on the message boards, most (in a few years time) would view Sevco as "Rangers", and they'd still have their history. Go to the official Airdrie site and check out their Club History if you think that "Rangers" would have died with Oldco.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But they won't will they. If the plan is have them back in the SPL by next season, there isn't going to be any further punishments beyond fines or suspended sentences. Perhaps a totally pointless suspension for a season, suspended as long as they don't do it again etc.

Regan might be fronting an SFA bid to get Sevco into Division 1 but he's not the SFA, and I suspect that the EBT's and the embarrassment caused by the Court ruling have ruffled a few feathers at SFA headquarters.

[seanshow]

http://www.clydefc.co.uk/news/2012/07/10/4139/


Clyde FC's latest statement picking holes in Friday's proposal, and laying it out in plain English for all to see.

[greenginger]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't have a problem with this.

It means that the SFA can punish Sevco for Oldco's misdemeanours. and possibly hold them liable for footballing debts. The footballing debts (especially outwith Scotland) is probably something that has worried the SFA, for fear of FIFA involvement and a potential backlash.

I suspect that it's also something that the SFA could force Sevco to do, to get past the 3 years accounts issue that has been touched on before.

There is'nt a more straight forward, unambiguous clause in the all of the SFA or SPL 's Articles, Rules and Regulations than this one, article 16, and it can be turned on its head and it does not get a mention from TV pundits or newspaper hacks who prefer to insult SFL Clubs who want to see the rules that are written, enforced.

[StevieC]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.clydefc.co.uk/news/2012/07/10/4139/


Clyde FC's latest statement picking holes in Friday's proposal, and laying it out in plain English for all to see.

I notice that they've picked up on the point I was making earlier about the wording of resolution (i).

It is also clear that they, and hopefully other SFL clubs, have absolutely no trust in those fronting the SFA and the SPL. And as such, they have no trust in resolution (ii) being carried out in a just and reasonable manner.

Excellent statement .. hopefully it will hit the tabloids tomorrow, but with the part the DR/Sun has played in this fiasco I'm not holding my breath.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

that's my take on it....transfer the licence and the history .


Again...it's only one year's accounts.....which Sevco don't have.

According to Alex Thomson's blog though, (see Greeginger's link) the SFA have said:

the…policy relates to applications for a new membership. In this case, Rangers Newco will be applying for the transfer of an existing membership held with the Oldco.Rangers Oldco submitted the necessary financial information for 2009 and 2010. It did not submit for the year 2011, which resulted in the Judicial Panel sanctioning the club a total of £160,000 for various breaches of its Articles of Association, and also imposing a transfer embargo which has been subsequently set aside after the Court of Session ruling by Lord Glennie.

Which sound to me a lot like some rewritten history.

[Brando7]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/07...6908-23906797/

If this anything to go by BDO will have their hands full sorting Rangers mess out, six years to sort out the Farepak collapse