craigkillie

If we're into the realms of making stuff up, then I am particularly outraged at the SPL rule which states that all clubs which don't play in Glasgow have to pay £3m a year to have the pleasure of having their matches televised.

You've received 11 green dots for this, so it's obviously went down well, but have I missed something? Where have the SFA suggested they will "happily be dictated to" by Miller?

I'm planning to as long as I will be attending Rugby Park next season - I have family through there who are already members.

I'm moving to Edinburgh in the summer. If the SPL is a fair competition, either with the current 1872 version of Rangers or without any Rangers at all, then I'll buy a season ticket and travel through to most, if not all of the games. If the Newco gets voted in, then there's no chance I'll buy one. It's the perfect opportunity for a clean break. I might go to the odd game when we visit Edinburgh, or if I'm at home for a weekend, but that will be it. And that's not an idle threat.

Nope, he's got you bang to rights. Fans of the other clubs want Rangers to start from the bottom, because that's what would happen to any of our clubs in that situation. Fans of Celtic just want a lame duck Rangers in the SPL so that they can thump them.

Yes. They can impose any sanctions they see fit.

The administrators have said a lot of things.

Have you actually read the statements? They would have taken about 30 seconds to prepare.

Completely non-commital statements from both. They are aware that Miller has been given preferred bidder status, and will continue discussions with Rangers.

That rather conveniently takes us to the Monday after the end of the season.

I brought it up because it seemed like an extremely appropriate time. We have a 700+ page thread mainly made up of people enjoying the situation Rangers find themselves in. You made numerous insinuations that posters were anti-Celtic or pro-Rangers (and are continuing to do so) - what better way to refute that than by looking in this thread. If you read back through this thread, loads of people condemned McCoist. There may even have been threads started on it - everything related to Rangers' administration has been merged in here.

Link 1 Link 2 Link 3 Read on from here too - it continues for a wee while.

How does this thread fit into your idea about the "subtle sectarianism creeping into P&B"? Do we still have an anti-Catholic agenda?

We play St Mirren at New Year - that wouldn't change. Celtic would play Motherwell and St Johnstone would play Aberdeen.

That decision won't be anything to do with the SFA.

The coefficient has dropped WITH Rangers, and after this season we almost certainly won't have a 2nd CL spot for a good few years. Rangers have won 1 of their last 25 matches in Europe. Hardly the sort of sterling record that keeps the coefficient afloat.

Where did your £7m figure come from? Plucked out of mid air? Why would the teams in 3rd-12th continue to get 68%? Without Rangers, everyone would move up a place and earn more.

You know it's bad when you'd actually prefer Lawwell to get voted in.

Missed this thread, but if you aren't counting caretaker spells then Kenny Shiels should be moved down the list a bit. He only took over as permanent manager on 15th June.

A Newco who were voted into the lowest tier available for them.

That is clearly not strictly true. When he made the statement about the "broad agreement" over the 10 team SPL last year, chairmen from at least 4 clubs almost immediately said that they hadn't agreed to it.

I believe this is a formality which has to be done by 31st March if your club has any chance of being in the league the following year. I think both Falkirk and Dundee were still in with a chance (theoretical at least) of promotion at that point.

That's exactly what I've seen and heard. "According to a source" stuff in tabloids/radio, and a hopeful piece in a local paper. The BBC have an incorrect article on their website stating that someone would be relegated if Rangers went bust during the season, even though the SPL rules state that this is not the case. They even quoted a completely fiction rule to back their piece up.

Has it been stated as fact by any named (and respectable) journalist, or just in anonymous newspaper pieces? I've only seen the latter.

Because they would lose the vote (by winning 10-2), obviously. If Rangers go bust before the vote, they can win 10-1 and get it through.