Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration

lubo_moravcik

Are Audi collecting their motors from Ibrokes?

Broxi_Bear_Eire

lubo_moravcik wrote: »

Are Audi collecting their motors from Ibrokes?

Yes as the sponsorship was cancelled about two weeks ago so the cars are being collected from Ibrox

Coillte_Bhoy

Eirebear wrote: »

You can hold whatever opinion you wish, but if you're going to deem it worthy of a national newspaper - then i am of the opinion that it should be as fully based on experience as possible.

Keane couldn't bring one single first hand experience of the Rangers support into his piece - in fact the only mention of violence, in what is a very aggressive article in terms of it's language is that of Celtic "fans" smashing up bus shelters in Royston.

My argument in terms of Palestinians and Jews is very much down this line - of course you are only ever going to form a poor opinion of Jews if you spend all your time with palestinians, and vice versa.
For me, this doesn't equate to a well rounded opinion - and certainly not one worthy of national news.

It's ignorance in the truest sense of the word, an opinion formed without experience or knowledge at the most base of levels, and the article itself plays into the hands of not only the hardcore of Celtic fans who will lap this up, but also the hardcore of idiots who support Rangers and will see this as another reason to support the idea that Ireland, as a nation, is the enemy.

As i said before, inflammatory and ignorant.

And as someone who doesn't normally do this sort of thing, I have wrote to the Independant saying as much - it will be interesting if i hear back.

So we cant comment on any political, social, cultural issue anywhere in the world unless we actually experience it first hand?

Anyway i think it's a poor article on a number of levels, but i dont necessarily disagree on his fundamental point but thats been done to death here so not interested in going through all that again. I'm still quite amazed that the Indo actually published the article and fair play you you for writing to them. Let us know if you get any response.

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

According to Rangers fans, the club is the club no matter what the company behind it does or becomes but you make the exception to what Airdrie did to get back into the league!

The only difference between what you and Airdrie is how you became an associate member of the SFL, they bought assets of another company which included their membership, similar to what Charles Green done except he tried to get Rangers SPL membership transferred but was voted down. Now he's looking for a new membership of the SFL because Rangers are dropping out completely and there is a vacant spot. You're now doing what Annan did when Gretna folded.

You'll all be awfully confused people if BDO null & voids the deal Charles Green did with D&P. Seems like ye are happy to follow whoever becomes tenants of Ibrox. Charles Green wants ye to buy season books, buy buy buy!

Green only tried to re-apply for the SPL straight away, but the SFA membership is still that of Rangers FC.
There is no new SFA membership.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Green only tried to re-apply for the SPL straight away, but the SFA membership is still that of Rangers FC.
There is no new SFA membership.

Let me rephrase for you

Charles Green tried to get Rangers SPL share transferred, that failed miserably. Now they are trying to get a spot in the SFL because Rangers FC is dropping out of the SPL, Dundee or Dunfermline will be getting their share and Sevco will be applying for the vacancy left by one of these clubs. You cannot have SFA membership until Rangers are no longer part of a league, Sevco cannot be a member of the SFA until you get into a league some how.

Its gas that you take exception to how the company behind Airdrieonions did this but then claim that it doesnt matter what Sevco does, it will be Rangers because it doesnt matter what the company behind the club does. Yer logic reeks of double standards

Dempsey

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/110253-fifa-sporting-merit-should-come-first-in-rangers-first-division-vote/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"Sporting merit" should come first when it comes to deciding which league Rangers play in next season, according to FIFA.

Fair bad when one corrupt organisation has to tell 2 other corrupt organisations that they are doing it wrong :pac:

Dempsey

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/clyde/110260-clyde-want-change-to-sfl-resolutions-on-rangers-first-division-vote/

Clyde want the Scottish Football League to change the wording of the first resolution at Friday's vote on allowing newco Rangers into the league.

STV understands the failure of the SFL to include “First" or "Third Division” in the resolution is central to Clyde's concerns, with directors fearing that even if they say no in the second vote, the league will bow to the wishes of the SPL and Scottish FA and include Rangers in the First Division regardless.

Clyde dont trust the SFA and SPL one bit, delighted!

Currently the vote count is at 14-3 for Rangers into Div3 and it seems that 2 of the clubs that want Sevco in D1 have shares in Rangers. The rules around owning shares in a rival club need to be overhauled. Conflicts of interests all over the place in Scottish Football.

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

Let me rephrase for you

Charles Green tried to get Rangers SPL share transferred, that failed miserably. Now they are trying to get a spot in the SFL because Rangers FC is dropping out of the SPL, Dundee or Dunfermline will be getting their share and Sevco will be applying for the vacancy left by one of these clubs. You cannot have SFA membership until Rangers are no longer part of a league, Sevco cannot be a member of the SFA until you get into a league some how.

Its gas that you take exception to how the company behind Airdrieonions did this but then claim that it doesnt matter what Sevco does, it will be Rangers because it doesnt matter what the company behind the club does. Yer logic reeks of double standards

I only said it's a different scenario from Airdrieonians, which is fact.

Red Crow

Do the Rangers fans here support Charles Green?

What do the Rangers supporters here think of the carry-on of Doncaster and Regan? Whose agenda are they promoting?

the realpigiron

Dempsey wrote: »

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/110253-fifa-sporting-merit-should-come-first-in-rangers-first-division-vote/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

"Sporting merit" should come first when it comes to deciding which league Rangers play in next season, according to FIFA.

Fair bad when one corrupt organisation has to tell 2 other corrupt organisations that they are doing it wrong :pac:

It may come down to UEFA and FIFA at the end of the day to deliberate on this shambles, because the powers that be in Scottish football are woefully inept. It's no wonder Scottish football has generally gone to the dogs, clearly it's been run by a bunch of clowns for decades.

Scottish football and the teams and talent they produced on a regular basis used to be respected years back, what a mess they've made of it all.

Hopefully Celtic at least can forge ahead intact as a club that can punch it's weight in the CL over the next few difficult years. I hope Lenny has got a bit of experience under his belt from the EL campaign last year and puts it to good use.

the realpigiron

the realpigiron wrote: »

It may come down to UEFA and FIFA at the end of the day to deliberate on this shambles, because the powers that be in Scottish football are woefully inept.

Or we could just give the job to someone who has shown a bit of leadership. Clyde FC, perhaps?

Dempsey

Deleted User wrote: »

Or we could just give the job to someone who has shown a bit of leadership. Clyde FC, perhaps?

Turnbull Hutton would be another person that should be more involved than he currently is.

ferrigan101

Not sure if this was posted yet.

The Hibs Club has watched events in Scottish football this summer with increasing concern:

For Hibs and their fans this summer should have been solely about a much needed rebuilding process.

Instead we have watched with increasing concern as the whole Scottish game has been tarnished by the financial collapse of Rangers.

As Hibs fans we know only too well how men concerned more with profiteering than the wishes of fans can risk the very existence of a football club.

So it is with increasing dismay that we have watched Scottish football tear itself apart in its attempts to protect a business model that operates more for the benefit of TV executives than ordinary supporters.

We believe that the new Rangers – if they can satisfy the usual standards demanded for SFA membership – should start out again in the Third Division.

We welcomed the “no” vote passed by the SPL, including our own club, but we have watched with dismay as the SPL clubs have stood silently on the sidelines as their own Chief Executive – with the help and approval of a now entirely discredited SFA – has tried to bully and threaten lower division clubs into submission.

Not only do we find the tactics used by Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan abhorrent, we also take issue with the doomsday scenarios they have offered as evidence.

While TV money and corporate sponsorship are undoubtedly important we do not believe that all of them would vanish if the Rangers newco was not guaranteed a place in the SPL within 12 months.

We would also argue that additional benefits – including a return to more regular 3pm Saturday kick off times – would offset some of the lost revenue.

This, however, is an issue that should go beyond finances.

It is essential that Hibernian – like all clubs – are part of a fair and equitable league structure with governing bodies that are consistent and reasonable in their treatment of all clubs.

We do not believe that is currently the case and we would call on all SPL clubs – including our own – to urgently address the damage being done to the game by Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan.

We have long felt that reconstruction of the league structure was a critical factor in strengthening the Scottish game.

The proposals that are currently being discussed destroy the prospect of a strong Scottish game and are aimed solely at rebuilding a strong Rangers.

These attempts at craven gerrymandering for the sake of one club are an affront to all the commitments to “sporting integrity” we have heard over the last few months.

Many Hibernian fans feel cheated. While the financial sacrifices made at Easter Road have not always found favour with many of our fans we do appreciate that these decisions have been made in the interests of long term stability.

We now find our voices ignored as rules are broken or rewritten to favour a club that has spent money it could not afford to buy success.

It is heartbreaking for us to hear members speak of not going back to Easter Road or of turning their back on the Scottish national team.

These are not hollow threats. They are a symptom of the disillusionment many fans feel at a game that seems to constantly betray its paying customers.

While we have sympathy for ordinary Rangers fans left bewildered by current events we have also been saddened over the last few months to hear Ally McCoist attempt to destroy a disciplinary process that had been created to help move the game forward.

Other comments from high profile Rangers figures such as Sandy Jardine have seemed to be nothing more than vindictive threats against other clubs. These have left us shocked and angered.

Now we find ourselves in the unacceptable position of watching Charles Green attempt to sign players while footballing debts to other clubs – debts that are as important as any projected TV or sponsorship income – remain unpaid.

Yet this apparent lack of contrition is being ignored as the Scottish football authorities unite to do what they feel is best for just one club.

We would hope that the European and global footballing authorities are watching these developments with interest and will move to censure the Scottish governing bodies.

Hibernian Football Club is our passion. We want to see a strong Hibs on the pitch and off the pitch. We want to see a sustainable Hibernian at the heart of our community.

22 years ago we united as fans to save Hibernian.

Today we find ourselves united in calling for Scottish football to end the current uncertainty, withdraw the the current campaign of bullying and threats aimed at our friends in the Scottish Football League and allow Rangers to rebuild their devastated club from the Third Division.

Fans of other clubs have been accused of “hating” Rangers.

We are defined not by hatred of any club but by our love of Hibernian.

A strong Hibernian in a strong Scottish game will forever be our one and only aim.

A few men motivated by greed and money currently risk that vision.

Fans of Hibernian and every other club cannot stand silently by and let that happen.

http://hibsclub.co.uk/2012/07/08/statement-on-rangers-scottish-football/

Dempsey

Dempsey wrote: »

Turnbull Hutton would be another person that should be more involved than he currently is.

Quite a few of the "wee clubs" have shown a capacity for clear-headed thinking that for some strange reason seems to have eluded the leadership of the SPL, SFA and the SFL.

Oh, here's a cracking quote (sorry if posted already):

"Speaking for myself, and myself alone, it is clear to me that people at the highest levels of our game have tried to hold a gun to my head and the heads of my colleagues. That will never work. "But I have a long memory and will not forget what they tried to do and the way they tried to bend me, and this Club, to their will. That will never be allowed to happen”

That's from the chairman of Cowdenbeath FC, a bloke who goes by the name of Donald Findlay, QC. :eek:

Dempsey

Thats a well written statement from the Hibs supporters club and I think it will resonate will alot of fans of the Scottish Game. I think one this vote is dealt with by the SFL, there is going to be a massive backlash against the SFA and SPL by clubs, something that been long overdue.

Ya, seen that quote alright, made even more powerful by the fact that Findlay is saying it.

Eirebear

Got to be honest here - my worry is that the backlash against the SFA/SPL will be taken in a manner which completely kills any hope of Rangers seeing football this year.

I've said this from the very, very beginning - the authorities have handled this terribly, and many on here argued with me on that matter.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

Got to be honest here - my worry is that the backlash against the SFA/SPL will be taken in a manner which completely kills any hope of Rangers seeing football this year.

I've said this from the very, very beginning - the authorities have handled this terribly, and many on here argued with me on that matter.

There is a major stumbling block when Sevco try to transfer Rangers SFA membership if they get admitted to the SFL. Rangers still dont have audited accounts for 2011. The tax case is still weeks away without any explanation given to the public for the delay. Rangers cannot audit their accounts for 2011 until the BTC is resolved. Before you say that I'm confusing this with UEFA licensing, check SFA requirements on club licensing. To transfer Rangers SFA membership, the "Oldco" needs to have its books for the last 3 years audited, they dont.

Hard to see Sevco playing ball anywhere next season if the rules are followed to the letter of the law.

Jelle1880

Deleted User wrote: »

What do the Rangers supporters here think of the carry-on of Doncaster and Regan? Whose agenda are they promoting?

PauloMN

Dempsey wrote: »

There is a major stumbling block when Sevco try to transfer Rangers SFA membership if they get admitted to the SFL. Rangers still dont have audited accounts for 2011. The tax case is still weeks away without any explanation given to the public for the delay. Rangers cannot audit their accounts for 2011 until the BTC is resolved. Before you say that I'm confusing this with UEFA licensing, check SFA requirements on club licensing. To transfer Rangers SFA membership, the "Oldco" needs to have its books for the last 3 years audited, they dont.

Hard to see Sevco playing ball anywhere next season if the rules are followed to the letter of the law.

Is the big tax case not a dead duck once Rangers FC are finally liquidated?

As for Sevco not playing any ball next season, Spiers has been saying that for months. A year out then placed in a new SPL2 might be what eventually happens. Would still allow them quicker entry to the SPL than going into Div 3 next season.

As for the authorities handling this badly, there's no doubt about it that they have done so. Absolutely no doubt. I do have a degree of sympathy for them though, for a number of reasons, in that a situation of this magnitude has never arisen before. Scottish football is pretty unique in its setup, and they are definitely struggling with how the demise of one huge team in that setup should be handled.

It's also clear that the rules are completely inadequate in this situation. Basically there are no rules it would seem - so they are trying to make stuff up as they go along essentially. I think it's easy to criticise them and point to the likes of Clyde's statement, and Turnbull Hutton etc. and say "look how clear cut it all is", but those guys would probably find things different on the SPL/SFL/SFA side of the fence if they had to deal with this situation from there.

Also while the effects on the Sky deal, sponsorship etc. is easily measured in millions of £, it's much harder to measure the losses in revenue that fan boycotts and fans simply falling away from their clubs would have on the game. For that reason, I suppose a disproportionate importance is placed on the Sky deal over the fans.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not agreeing with the authorities in this by the way. I've said all along that Div 3 is the only suitable place for Sevco to enter the league as a new club - but I do understand the very difficult position the authorities find themselves in.

cruiserweight

Duff and Phelps creditors report is available in full here http://www.rangers.co.uk/staticFiles/a2/b6/0,,5~177826,00.pdf I have not had a chance to have a full read yet

Dempsey

PauloMN wrote: »

Is the big tax case not a dead duck once Rangers FC are finally liquidated?

When liquidation was announced, D&P said that they need 10-12 weeks before they could hand the club over to liquidators. Thats the start of September if D&P manage to keep a deadline. Dont be surprised if the BTC results magically appear when BDO gets the reigns of the club. HMRC are currently building their case so that they can go after former board members for the tax bill, they havent given up getting taxpayers money yet. BDO will have access and powers to assist HMRC better than administrators could. Rangers could still be in existence next year because of court dates!

What that all means for Sevco is that they cannot transfer Rangers SFA membership because their books neither companies books currently meets the criteria for SFA membership

Dempsey

D&P allowed all player contracts to be sold to Sevco for £2.75m, they allowed Ibrox, Murray Park & Albion Car Park to be sold for £1.5m. Some scam, cant wait to hear what BDO have to say about that deal.

Soups123

That is shocking they would have raised more from a quick fire sale of players

Dempsey

Tony McKelvie ‏@TonyMcKelvie

There were 784 usual working hours between 14th Feb and 29th June. Clark and Whitehouse managed to bill 2597 hours in the period. Clever.

Retweeted by Phil MacGiollaBhain

*Sniggers*

Savage Tyrant

Punishment and Redress

There has been plenty of misguided indignation about “punishment” for Rangers FC, or its supposed successor club.

I say misguided, but part of the fun is determining who is really misguided and who is doing the wilful misguiding.

Either way, let’s imagine a little scenario. You have a beautiful new iPad. At a train station, you momentarily lay it down on the seat beside you, and before you know it, an opportunistic thief has pinched it. You barely catch a glimpse of him sprinting away, your prized possession tucked under his arm as he vanishes into the crowds.

Fortunately, Strathclyde’s finest are on the case. CCTV is analysed, witnesses are interviewed, and within a couple of weeks, a suspect is identified and arrested. Let’s call him “Big Dave”. There, in his living room, is your beloved iPad.

So what happens next? Do the police simply return your iPad and that’s the end of it? What sort of message does that send out; that the only consequence of theft is having to return the stolen item if caught? Clearly, redress is not enough. Punishment must follow.

But lets imagine the police tell you Big Dave will be punished for his crime, but he can keep your iPad. You are incredulous. The thief keeps the item he broke the law to obtain, and you, the acknowledged victim of a crime, have to let him keep and enjoy your rightful property. This scenario is ludicrous. Punishment alone is not sufficient either; there must be both punishment and redress.

Now picture the scene in court: “It’s no fair tae take that iPad away fae oor faim’ly,” pleads Big Dave’s wife, Sally. “Big Dave telt me he goat it legit. Oor boy, Wee Billy, loves that iPad. He disnae know it was stolen. It would break Wee Billy’s heart if ye took that iPad aff him. He might even throw a maddie and hurt someb’dy, but that’s no a threat, right?”

Convinced you should let the thief keep your property? Is the judge? Didn’t think so.
Seeing he’s on to a loser, Big Dave tries to cut a deal. “Ok, Your Honour. Here’s how it is. I’ll accept a £100 fine and a wee bit of community service if you let me keep the iPad? For Wee Billy’s sake?”
Deal or no deal?

Step outside the fundamentally corrupt prism of Scottish football and the just outcome of my little scenario is glaringly obvious. Your rightful property is returned to you – no matter how much it upsets Wee Billy – and Big Dave is punished for his crime, which naturally sees his family suffer too. Who’s fault is it that Sally and Wee Billy suffer for Big Dave’s crimes? Big Dave, of course. Not the police. Not the judge. And certainly not you, the innocent victim of his crime.

Can you find me anyone who credibly denies that Rangers won a string of trophies while breaking the rules of football by fielding players deemed ineligible by the non-disclosure of their full contractual payments? When their guilt is finally officially declared, there must be redress. The official record must be changed. Medals and flags must be reclaimed and distributed to the clubs and players cheated by a side which could only beat them with an artificially strong and illegally registered playing squad.

This is justice. This is redress. It is not a punishment, any more than Big Dave being required to return your iPad - shock horror - is a punishment.

The punishment must be determined separately. But giving back what you stole is no punishment.

One final scenario: Big Dave’s extravagant lifestyle and dodgy behaviour catches up with him, and by the time the case reaches court, Big Dave has sadly passed away and can only be contacted from the other side by a pair of highly skilled mediums called Malcolm and James. Even though a curious character called Charlie from Yorkshire has rolled up calling himself “The Dave”, laying claim to Big Dave’s estate and apparently in there with Sally (if not Wee Billy), the indisputable legal fact is that Big Dave is no more.

Can you punish a dead man? Of course not. Does redress for his crimes die with him? Absolutely not.

Big Dave may be dead, but his family can’t keep the iPad he stole from you. That’s the bottom line.

Jelle1880

He could have just said 'I pyoor want their trophies taken and given to us!'

Savage Tyrant

Jelle1880 wrote: »

He could have just said 'I pyoor want their trophies taken and given to us!'

Or.... 'I pyoor want to see justice done.'

Personally I wouldn't want the trophies in question awarded to us, but I most definitely think the titles from the cheating seasons should be stripped and voided.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

He could have just said 'I pyoor want their trophies taken and given to us!'

Do you think that Rangers should keep tainted titles?

Jelle1880

I still haven't heard what specific titles those are.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

I still haven't heard what specific titles those are.

How could you when your head is buried in the sand :rolleyes:

Jelle1880

Great argumentation there, not surprising though.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

Great argumentation there, not surprising though.

So you know nothing of the players payments investigation?

Jelle1880

So you want to punish Rangers for something of which there is no verdict yet.

Savage Tyrant

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So you want to punish Rangers for something of which there is no verdict yet.

And if they are found guilty, would that in your opinion, warrant the stripping of honours? Or should you be allowed to keep them anyway?

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

So you want to punish Rangers for something of which there is no verdict yet.

Oh so you do know what I'm talking about!! Try answering the question I actually asked!

Now read this carefully....

Do you think that Rangers should keep tainted titles?

....and answer yes or no. Simples!

Jelle1880

It's useless to speculate about that, you yourself don't even know which of those titles are 'tainted' so why ask ?

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's useless to speculate about that, you yourself don't even know which of those titles are 'tainted' so why ask ?

You're afraid to answer a simple hypothetical question.

Sounds like you'll disappear for a month or 5 when the verdict comes in! :pac:

Eirebear

To be fair to Jelle here - he also asked a simple question.

No one has answered it.

Dempsey

Eirebear wrote: »

To be fair to Jelle here - he also asked a simple question.

No one has answered it.

If he could answer my question without changing what I said or asking about something I didnt say then I might be bothered answering what ever he asks me but too often he tries these bull**** deflection/twist his words tactics when he puts his foot in it

SomethingElse

How about this scenario...

In a particular pack of jellybeans there are 12 different colours. Each colour forms a team which play against the other colours for the honour of top jellybean team within that bag. One jellybean team, say team orange, use methods that are against the jellybean rules to give themselves an unfair advantage. They win the jellybean championship but later the other jellybean teams find out about their cheating. While it can not be proved if the cheating made the difference between the team winning the championship and not winning the championship, the other jellybeans in the bag all agree to meet to decide to discuss if a punishment should be the handed down. They struggle to come to a decision and seek outside advice on the matter.

For the first time in their history they peer out of their jellybean bag and ask you, Jelle1880, can you help them? Can you help make their decision? Their jellybean ears strain eagerly as they wait for a reply.

Jelle1880

Dempsey wrote: »

If he could answer my question without changing what I said or asking about something I didnt say then I might be bothered answering what ever he asks me but too often he tries these bull**** deflection/twist his words tactics when he puts his foot in it

You're the one who consistently comes out with this hypothetical bull**** and then throws a tantrum when none of the Rangers fans want to dignify it with an answer, that's not 'deflecting' from my side.

If there is a verdict, then sure I'll discuss it, but as of now it's Celtic fan's hope of stripped titles and nothing more.

The fact you seem more bothered with me than one of your own club's legends passing away says it all: Obsessed doesn't even begin to describe it.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You're the one who consistently comes out with this hypothetical bull**** and then throws a tantrum when none of the Rangers fans want to dignify it with an answer, that's not 'deflecting' from my side.

The fact you seem more bothered with me than one of your own club's legends passing away says it all: Obsessed doesn't even begin to describe it.

I'm not throwing any tantrums at all! I asked a simple question which you wont answer. You keep trying to change what I say to argue about something else. Just a little sick of your constant deflection tactics when you put your foot in it.

If Celtic were guilty of the things that Rangers "have a case to answer for", I'd expect them to be dealt with in a manner that benefits Scottish Football, handed 3-0 defeats for any match with an illegally registered player involved. Seems you dont think Rangers should be punished this harshly since you are digging in your heals, there's fúck all dignity in holding onto things illegally gained but thats something you dont seem to care much about.

When did posting on boards.ie become the place to pay my respects to Joe McBride? Thats probably the lamest attempt at one-upmanship I've read in a while! :eek:

Jelle1880

It's easy saying that when your club is not the one in trouble, but I don't believe for a second you'd be ok with Celtic losing titles.

And it has nothing to do with one-upmanship, just an observation.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's easy saying that when your club is not the one in trouble, but I don't believe for a second you'd be ok with Celtic losing titles.

And it has nothing to do with one-upmanship, just an observation.

I'd be disgusted with Celtic if it happened, absolutely. It would be embarrassing to claim titles after it was discovered that they were won by playing season upon season of illegally registered players so taxes could be used as working capital.

A stupid and crass observation tbh. I'm far more concerned about whats happening with Scottish Football as a whole and not just what happens your pathetic little club. To use the untimely death of Joe McBride as part of your 'observation' was fairly pathetic and childish. Wow, I havent made a comment about it on boards.ie yet, I must be a terrible Celtic fan! :rolleyes:

Helix

Jelle1880 wrote: »

It's useless to speculate about that, you yourself don't even know which of those titles are 'tainted' so why ask ?

he didnt even say that any titles were tainted, he just asked that if you believed rangers (and by extension i assume he means any club) should be allowed to keep titles that were acquired during a period where league rules were being consistently broken by the club in question

now, saying that you do or dont believe a club in that situation should keep the "tainted" titles, once they're proven to be so, doesn't explicitly apply to rangers unless they are found guilty of breaking the rules, and therefore become just like the hypothetical question

personally i think its a fair question, and 6 months ago im sure you'd have had no issue answering it, hypothetically

smackbunnybaby

Jelle1880 wrote: »

The fact you seem more bothered with me than one of your own club's legends passing away says it all: Obsessed doesn't even begin to describe it.

you want him to pay tribute in the "Rangers FC lodge papers to go into administration " thread?

Jelle1880

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/108222-rangers-newco-vote-sfl-clubs-outline-their-positions-on-the-issue/

That's 17 votes against Rangers in Div1.

Regan and Doncaster must be ****ting themselves.

Dempsey

Jelle1880 wrote: »

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/108222-rangers-newco-vote-sfl-clubs-outline-their-positions-on-the-issue/

That's 17 votes against Rangers in Div1.

Regan and Doncaster must be ****ting themselves.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/110606-in-full-proposal-made-to-sfl-clubs-to-allow-rangers-into-first-division/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

But wait, here comes the carrot!!

All these restructuring changes, merging of governing bodies and the time frame to iron out the kinks can be done separately. Its very disingenuous to be only offering them now, especially 14 club top tier expanding to 16 clubs when the the SFA & SPL were championing a return to 10 club top flight just the season gone by.

I hope the clubs see through their bull**** and move to separate the two issues.

EDIT

II) Governance recognising that one league body should have a chairman and two non-executive directors (to be appointed by the board and nominated by a panel with equal representation between i. the top division and ii. the other divisions). Three directors elected by clubs in top division and two directors elected by clubs in remaining divisions.

I can say it now, SFL will not agree to this. They want equal footing with the SPL on the board and 2 independents.

cruiserweight

Dempsey wrote: »

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/110606-in-full-proposal-made-to-sfl-clubs-to-allow-rangers-into-first-division/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

But wait, here comes the carrot!!

All these restructuring changes, merging of governing bodies and the time frame to iron out the kinks can be done separately. Its very disingenuous to be only offering them now, especially 14 club top tier expanding to 16 clubs when the the SFA & SPL were championing a return to 10 club top flight just the season gone by.

I hope the clubs see through their bull**** and move to separate the two issues.

Well Clyde are skeptical, another good statement from them http://www.clydefc.co.uk/statement.html