Handsome_Devil

Nothing. I think both sides have retired to their respective corners in view of battle recommencing tomorrow after the SFA AGM. Green and Duffteam may also get in on the action if they have a statement celebrating the handover.

Jane Lewis ‏@JaneLewisSport Fifa confirm what BBC Scotland told you on Friday nite. On the #Rangers #SFA dispute -today they say ''there is no need for us to become involved with it being back within the sporting system which is in accordance with our own statutes.''

They said they're quite happy now that it's back within football. You can read that as Rangers are off the hook with threats from FIFA, the SFA are off the hook with threats from FIFA or FIFA are now content the SFA will hand out a bitch slapping for Rangers going to court in the first place now the matter is back within the game.

It's very theoretical since Rangers will not die completely - current entity quite possibly but even if the 'worst' happens, they'll reform and will be back in the league system. Anyway, if they did vanish the current generation of Rangers fans will not go elsewhere other than perhaps their local junior team. Senior football is too expensive to make going along to random games appealing to anything other than a handful of folk - yes there are good, even great, ST deals available but no passing football fan will commit to that, especially if there is a sense of bitterness at having been kicked out. As for future generations, no doubt some would be dragged along by uncles, friends etc and will end up supporting local teams but it would take a while.

Could be...but I thought they could still ask for the original panel to be the next step.

Since nothing seems to be happening, a quick question. Rangers have 21 days from the CofS decision on the transfer ban to appeal the fact the judge referred the decision back to the appeal board and not the original panel - is it possible the appeal board can sit inside this 21 day period when Rangers could still be considering an appeal? And if so, could Rangers then return to the court if they didn't like the new sentence handed down saying they weren't giving up their right to appeal that the court didn't refer the decision back to the original panel?

1. SFA suspends Rangers for a year. 2. Green uses this as an excuse to walk away, either writing off the 200k he's put in or getting the Blue Knights to refund him as a fee for taking over his opportunity to buy the Newco Assets. 3. The Blue Knights start the Newco with an immediate share issue to recoup some of their £5.7m and sell season tickets for 2013-14 from £100-£250. If average price is £175 and they sell 20,000, that's £3.5m in working capital. 4. The players are released, all but a skeleton staff are made redundant with as much as possible being mothballed for a year. 5. Dundee get promoted to the SPL and everyone else is dunted up one. 6. Steven Thompson turns Tannadice into a roller disco in celebration of the return of the derby. Everyone else can tell their bank manager is wasn't them who booted Rangers out and if they can just be reasonable they'll figure out a plan. 6. The SFL have an election for the open space. Rangers apply and volunteer to recompense the other nine in the Third Division by £20k a club for the home fixtures they won't play in 2012-13. Between this and the SFL being moist at the thought of a Rangers based television deal from 2013, they get in even though they can't play immediately. 7. Rangers earn promotion in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and return to the SPL for 2016-17. Viable?

If it wasn't too weak a penalty they'd have done the obvious thing and impose it originally. I can't see how it's common sense to reward further rule breaking with the punishment Rangers have basically requested.

It's also clear they viewed the cup ban as too lenient so they're going to have to pick something they had dismissed previously. And given Rangers broke a further rule in an attempt to pick their own punishment, if it wasn't 'the people' I don't think we'd even be debating what would happen next.

Indeed. And if either are feeling particularly vindictive, I believe they could vote yes at the meeting and then scupper them on July 11.

Fair point. I find this assertion: "But the administrators say the cash is there, with the costs expected to be met by Green's Sevco company through either transfer fees or season ticket revenue" mind-boggling. Okay, it's not a direct quote but D+P but you'd think they'd be shouting from the rooftops if Green had actually handed over cash serious enough to fund six weeks of trading. So if the BBC is accurate on this claim they either need to gain a few million in transfer fees this month or start selling season tickets to an entity which is not yet guaranteed to exist in two months - hmm....

It's true. Whether or not they'll choose to go though is another matter - for all Whitaker, for example, can leave for less than a million, I'm not convinced many clubs will be inclined to offer him the insane amount he's on at Rangers. McGregor made his decision to sign a five year deal a while ago rather than move to England so I suspect he wants to stay in Glasgow. The foreigners with no real connection to the city and Naismith would seem the 'stars' most likely to be poached and reading between the lines of the BBC article on D+P claiming the club can be funded for the next six weeks, I think driving them to the train station is a pretty crucial part of the plan.

Probably but not for that reason - Rangers took them to court to say you have to punish us by one of the four means listed and won, regardless of which one is handed out now they have already agreed to it being fair. I guess you could go to CAS but Rangers argued (successfully) they had no means to go there either so that doesn't seem logical. So whatever the tribunal decides next, I don't see how Rangers will have any choice but to accept it.

I don't disagree with that, merely listing what the possible punishments were. The tribunal said 3 and 4 were too severe for the previous charge, we don't yet know how Rangers will be dealt with for going outside sport to the law court. If the first charge is now joined by that in the same offence (an uber charge, if you will :-)), there's no guarantee the tribunal will still feel number three (as the next step up) is too severe, especially as we don't know for sure just how much pressure FIFA will put on them to deliver an almighty kick in the balls. However, like you I still think the cup ban will be it. A year seems little though, two or three years possibly more likely.

It was said at the time that the £100k fine was completely inadequate hence the addition of the transfer ban. They also said expulsion/suspension was too harsh but given they ignored the obvious sanction of the cup ban it was clearly felt that wasn't enough - we can therefore assume the punishment order is: 1. fine 2. cup expulsion (attempted transfer ban) 3. suspension 4. expulsion I'm pretty sure they're not going to ban them forever (it wasn't match fixing, referee tapping etc) so it would seem likely they're hovering between positions 2 and 3. However, if they consider the offence of taking the SFA to court to be part of this one process, it's not a huge leap logically to think this might tip them towards suspension instead of merely banning them from the cup. It's just the ramification of this being certain death which makes it seem unlikely.

Mibbes but will still believe it when I see it. I guess they'll round up the usual suspects for the tribunal meeting next week so hopefully not long to wait.

Do you really think the SFA will want to be held responsible for killing one of only two big clubs in Scotland and turning goodness knows how many people away from the game forever? I'm not saying they (or rather the tribunal) shouldn't but I just don't think they'll be bold enough to make a decision with that type of implication. They'll play it safe and ban them from the cup for 1-3 years.

The SPL is a farce. However, all clubs signed up to the greed is good deal in the late 90s so complaining they are putting money first now is a bit ridiculous. The whole point of the organisation is to make money. The SFA is different, it was formed at a different time when different principles mattered. As an organisation it is completely in the dark ages but it is at least starting to change in terms of improving the disciplinary system, changing the committee structure etc. The appeal panel has a real test coming up though. Throwing Rangers out of the Scottish Cup would now seem the minimum sanction they can reasonably apply but that still seems relatively minor in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand a suspension will, without doubt, kill the existing club stone dead and I doubt they'll have the balls for that. Incidentally, does anyone have any precedents about clubs being suspended? And given this is already the appeal panel, is there any way Rangers can contest the decision?

I know you're taking the piss here but for the avoidance of all doubt, if suspended Rangers wouldn't be able to play another side in the UEFA family even in friendlies, from Real Madrid to Forres Mechanics. Rangers seem to have put the tribunal in a position where they have no choice but to suspend them. Somehow I can't see it happening though, they'll wimp out.

I missed this, what´s going on with the SFA at 12? This is in addition to the SPL meeting?

Rangers were taking a huge risk by going to court against the SFA. Fair play to them, for now they appear to have won but there´s no knowing what sanction the SFA will impose instead and should the CVA fail they´ll need the goodwill of other clubs to keep going. Regarding the CVA, this is just getting weird...Rangers sell what, 40,000 season books at an average of 400 quid each season? That´s 16m annually for a start before any other revenue stream is considered, telly money, prize money etc. Even with the wage budget being cut they would still have guaranteed European football (after whatever sanctions obviously) and basically a 50-50 chance of winning the league each season. That not one rich dude or group of investors considers putting together even a semi-respectable CVA for this potential return screams out that there is something which makes taking on Rangers way more risky than the seemingly obvious numbers suggest. Someone pointed that Celtic, minus current liabilities, were worth around 56m - debt free Rangers would be roughly the same so why is no one even considering stumping up 26m to get this global brand name with a massive and loyal customer base for half price? I don´t think anyone can be entirely sure of how this will play out but I think Rangers are still a long way from smelling like roses.

The piece from BD seems idiotic because he can´t have it both ways that both he and Rangers are completely innocent. It reads so badly because his first instinct (quite correctly) is to protect himself and his own reputation and in fairness to him, I think he has a point - he was due the rest of his contract paid up, Rangers asked him if he could do them a favour by receiving the correct amount after tax in a certain way. Perhaps he should have been more suspicious and maybe I´m naive but if a massive, multi-million pound company asked me the same favour, while my instinct would say while there would no doubt be some benefit to them, I would assume they have checked it out with very expensive lawyers and accountants so that it remains above board. I would not for a second suspect they were just pocketing money due to the tax man with apparent reckless abandon. Sadly for Dodds he didn´t have the guts to come out and say openly that he was deceived as he was scared of the reaction of the *** hordes turning on him - trying to defend Rangers the way he did here just makes him look stupid.

I don´t think they have to but they could obviously choose to do so. However, there are so many creditors I think the chance of details not leaking through the press is pretty slim.

Maybe I´m being simple today but Haudit or Daudit (which one is Paul Clark again?) is seriously claiming to be optimistic HMRC will accept a deal with an unknown value on it which not only lets Rangers off the hook on the tax case but on around 15 million of unpaid tax since last May for the sake of making a million or two more than not shutting them down? To accept this deal knowing football creditors will be paid in full a couple of months later while the new owners make noises about giving the manager a war chest to spend on players? I knew I should have stuck in at accountancy at uni...

Rangers are morons...they still don't seem to appreciate they have much bigger problems than the next 12 months and if/when the CVA fails they'll need the goodwill of Scottish football to keep going. They're hitting out at the people they're going to need to help them.