Thumper

No. If the SFL clubs decline to put Rangers in SFL1, then the SFA is going to create a new "SPL2" (containing Sevco, Stenny, Dumbarton and whatever other dregs are left), install this below the SPL, cut off promotion between SPL and SFL, and tear up the settlement deal. Any alteration of the TV deal would be to stretch it over "SPL2". Hilariously, at least two BoDs in the league actually think this is likely to happen.

Baffling. You are aware that football is a business, right? Now, which of the following would you, as a Burger King board member, feel that you would be best publicly divulging / abstaining from? Owning shares in McDonalds Operating a McDonalds franchise "Liking" the McDonalds Facebook page Eating Big Macs When I was first sat down for an HR meeting on what constituted a conflict of interest, I thought that it was generally pretty common-sense stuff. Maybe that's not the case?

I seem to recall that there are other industries in which such a clear conflict of interest would be unacceptable. What were they again...? ... Oh, yes, that's right: every other industry.

In fairness, the shares are in the Oldco. There's no direct financial benefit for shareholders here. That said, the reason is fairly straightforward: the SFA is slightly more corrupt than the average Central American CIA puppet state. Rather than banning chairmen from owning shares in other clubs, we allow them to own up to a 5% stake. Because that's totally normal!

Fixed

I must still be missing how having a newco who have six senior players, three weeks before the league kicks off in the SPL next season would be a robust challenge to Celtic's title push.

In fairness though, you can't say you weren't pishing yourself watching them lose to nine men in the League Cup final.

If he was that honest, why did he give as his rationale that he was reflecting the opinion of the fan base, based on an interpretation of a poll that would make Saddam's reelection look like the model of democracy?

The Clyde statement made it abundantly clear that Doncaster had stated that the SPL would be withholding the payment due to spite, rather than because they couldn't pay it. It's also absurd to suggest that even in the worst case scenario the SPL couldn't cobble together £6m in sponsorship and coverage fees. Again, any club making decisions based on this scenario is run by craven idiots.

Except for an affidavit by the head of the SFA that this was non-negotiable, you mean? Right now, the statements by the clubs are generally encouraging. Enough SFL teams have made public statements to the effect that the Newco should be placed in the Third to make installation in the First impossible, assuming that nobody has a change of heart. But until the vote is cast (and even after, in case Regan is actually stupid enough to follow through with his empty SPL2 threat), you'd be foolish not to worry.

And that article specifically says it'll be three votes, so I was wrong. Yippee! The "SPFL" discussion is still a shit sandwich far basically anyone outside of the Old Firm, let alone the SPL. I can't see how even the most craven of lower-league chairmen are going to vote to give the SPL twice their voting power, let alone why any SPL chairman (except Michael Johnson) would specifically reaffirm 11-1 for major resolutions.

SFA blocking all TUPE leavers' international clearance. I think it's fair to say that if the SFA is going to pick completely meritless fights with FIFA, it's going to do whatever it likes on Friday as well. Hopefully someone from FIFA has been fitted with an appropriately-hardened set of steel toecap boots to apply to Regan's testicals what is due to them.

I suspect the SFA's blazers will be writing a furious letter to EA to ensure that this bug is corrected in future releases.

There is absolutely zero chance of Rangers even coming close to breaking even in the "medium to long-term". Even when they had a squad capable of at least trying to reach the CL group stages they were losing money, and that's without paying tax. Scotland has now essentially permanently forfeited its second CL place as well. The "consortium" is here for precisely long enough to find a stupid enough buyer, after which Green will never be north of the border for the rest of his life. It's already been established that Whyte doesn't have any money. He'd also be risking criminal charge if he were acting as a shadow director. KDS wet dream methinks. That's correct. Were that the case, any mixed vote would completely f**k the league up. I'm baffled that so many people have come to this conclusion when it's completely illogical, as all three parts are interdependent (part ii would completely obviate part i if the answer were yes, part i would cancel part ii if the answer were no, and either of them would have to give the same result as part iii or you'd end up with an odd number of teams in each section).

It's not just Scotland. They've hardly come down like a ton of bricks on Italy, for instance, where gerrymandering of dead clubs into the upper tiers takes second fiddle to such japes as, say, directly bribing referees and throwing matches. On the other hand, I can definitely see them taking action if SPL2 is formed literally three weeks before the season starts, with no relegation. But then, you'd think that some of the diddy teams would start reaching for their lawyers' phone numbers in that case as well, as they did when Rangers tried to chuck Stranraer etc out back in the day.

Just for the sake of anyone who wasn't aware, the SFL vote on Friday may have three clauses, but it's only one vote. Clubs will not be asked to consider each part in isolation. So they either vote to let Sevco in, let Leishman, Regan and Co install them in SFL1, and allow Dun* to join the SPL, or they do none of these things. This is why the vote is fixed, and why the only moral option is to vote no and call the SFA's bluff.

Didn't see this posted earlier. Any club in the SFL stupid enough to vote for this shit sandwich should be wound up immediately.

They wouldn't get sixty grand from two home games. The important point here is that they're budgeting for a situation which would be so flagrantly corrupt that FIFA wouldn't allow it (reneging on the settlement). They don't even have the excuse of petty self-preservation that Dumbarton have. (And by the way, f**k Dumbarton.)

I hear Stenhousemuir's board have already affirmed its findings in a hasty EGM.

Apparently there's nothing in the statutes to suggest that newly-voted members actually have to start in the third. It's just the convention that, well, every club has used for over a hundred years.

Everyone wonders that. (And he didn't leave quickly: he faded out quickly, and then sat on the bench collecting a huge wage for the duration of his contract. Then failed to ever reproduce that form for the rest of his career.) The difference is that most people aren't stupid enough to pass on as authentic the first piece of nonsense that affirms their own personal prejudices. Congratulations on all your greenies, though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but don't you write for a popular football blog?

Your chief creditor is the bank, right? The bank isn't going to reject a CVA unless it thinks that the land RP is on is worth more than the club. So you wouldn't be liquidated (just docked ten points), and would quite possibly stay up considering the likely quality of Dun[dee,fermline]'s squad. Boot the high earners, sell the hotel, adjust. Distinct lack of Armageddon.

To be fair, that the "interview" in question is fake probably reflects more poorly on your own intelligence than it does on Rangers-That-Was.

A rumour that Leishman is on the board? Or a rumour that the document is real, from one of the few sources consistently on the money throughout this whole fiasco (a source who happens to be an internationally-renowned war correspondent)? And Hibs were prominent favours of sporting integrity. Petrie then personally coached Green on how to get back into the SPL.