Ric

It's a sad indictment of things when even a regular visit to the Rangers in slow painful death thread doesn't cheer one up of a morning.

That reminds me of the time a couple of lads in the town I was living in at the time dug up all the bulbs the council had planted the day before and rearranged them. It took a bloody long time for it to play out but instead of saying "Britain in Bloom 1986", it spelt out f**k Off You b*****ds". Sadly the display didn't quite reach it's zenith and was quickly howked out as soon as the revised message was visible.

Yeh, I'm with you on this. He is there to put forward the SPL as a brand not for the benefit of the separate clubs although I appreciate that those two are not mutually exclusive. That said, even if he was just a mouthpiece, could they not have chosen someone a little less rat faced and unbelievable? And this demonstrates the problem with the way the issue is polarised. There may very well be accurate comments posted on Rangers and Celtic affiliated boards but thanks to their leanings you just can't believe any of them without being cynical. It's not our fault, we've been lied to and manipulated for so long for so many different agendas that everything is met by an assumption there is an ulterior motive.

I didn't listen to Doncaster on either BBC or STV and I genuinely feel better for it. I know what the slimy little c**t would have said anyway...

Several reasons, primarily cost and bad publicity. If someone buys Ibrox for either retail or residential it'll be boycotted by the Rangers fans for the company stealing the club's assets and the Celtic fans simply because it was Ibrox, and the cost of altering it to fit either purpose would be vastly more than just building elsewhere.

I saw that they had voted on a couple of issues but as they managed to dodge some of the huge ones I'm surprised they even bothered with the pishy little bits.

I think the problem a lot of the diddy 10 club chairmen have is that the possible boycott of the club by their fans should a NewCo be ushered in is that it's an intangible threat. When looking at the league (and TV deal) without Rangers they can look at the balance sheet and attribute a certain value to their participation in the SPL. The fans protests are unquantifiable at this time.

I hate to say it but it is sounding a little like I had suggested at the beginning. The sanctions will be minimal and Rangers, regardless of guise, will continue in the SPL and the league chairman will be forced to accept it. Now, let me give you an even more worrying scenario... If Rangers (NewCo/OldCo/whatever) are kept in the SPL, the diddy teams will have no chance of getting the 11/1 ratio overturned, and we will have a whole new generation of Rangers fans who somehow feel they have been badly treated out of all this, acting all smug because they'll think they've "won" and will continue their boycott of the clubs they think were responsible for putting the boot in resulting in lower gates for the non OF teams and very little chance of convincing the club at boardroom level to play fair with future rule changes/amendments because they will equally see the diddy 10 as being instrumental in the problems they had when trying to get out of administration.

Surely you have a vandetta...

It's not deleted, merely moved to the correct forum.

I think everyone realises that they can continue on until the deferral of the wages stops. Now I've never really worked out the deferral thing as for me it means that those who agreed to it would not only return to their previous salaries but would also recoup the outstanding balance. Is that the case or is it just that they return to their normal salaries only?

If anything I've just seen the most coherent post on RM.. As sentiment I think we can all agree on regardless of who you support.

Abstain? Why for God's sake. They must have worked out which way they were going to vote by now. It's not as if the subject hasn't been spoken about. That said, perhaps we should look on the bright side and assume that the reason for wanting more clarification was that the points detailed were not clear enough and may have allowed Rangers to wriggle through a loophole.

Really? Deary me, if true, that is utter avoidance. I mean I can understand why, but it seems a bit cowardly and the cynic in me suggests they are wanting to delay the decision until Rangers are either bought over or liquidated. The problem is that with every postponement of the SPL decision the bidders for Rangers are going to ask for a delay on their bids. It just becomes a vicious circle.

From Leggat's recent mental case ramblings.. Aye, Davie boy, I think you've hit the nail on the head there..

Interestingly not that much different, the only notable being Aberdeen's leapfrogging of Killie. SINISTER!

Ok, let's start with the genuine problem. The clubs rely on the OF due to the sponsorship money, they do not need them to survive. This is a very important distinction. There are many arguments as to why we have got to a situation like this, but one of them surely has to be the introduction of television money which has rewarded the successful while those who are not then get stuck in the cycle of investing money in order to make money. Many have tried but it's extremely difficult to break a duopoly who not only have exponentially greater finances but also enjoy a far great level of patronage from those in power and the media in general. So in a sense you are right, but it does not need to be that way. Many leagues throughout the world survive without the OF in them which lends the "need" argument somewhat redundant. The following is not an untruth as such, but is certainly open to debate if not definition... For a start, what proof do you have that Rangers supporters "bailed them out". It's a wonderfully vague term and on that needs a little clarity. However in it's absence it's fair to say that not only were Dunfermline's problems little to do with the OF (at least not directly) and based on a mix of legacy issues and bad planning but l can't see any particular evidence that they were in any way "bailed out". Feel free to correct me on this as obviously not being a Dunfermline fan I might have missed it. Now for the complete untruths... To be pedantic (or even worse, technical), they did not evade tax, at least certainly in the Hearts case. They were late, sure, but they were not evading them. I think you need to go to a dictionary and read what the word evade means and certainly in a legal sense in regard to tax payment. Rangers set about using a system to specifically avoid pay taxes rather than being late. The intention was never to pay them rather than pay them late. Now you could argue that this tax evasion was considered legal or not, but the truth of the matter is that the powers that be consider that tax was due and this is the state of play at the moment. If you are talking about the lower league grounds you might find the odd case of this, but as a whole of Scottish football, this is just an invention at best and shame faced lies at worst. This is nice, it's like two lies rolled into one. For a start the first part, I'd be very surprised if you had access to Barcelona's accounts however I think you will find that they have not been found guilty in any way of not paying taxes. Secondly the assumption that those calling for punishment of Rangers are somehow sectarian is laughable to say the least. In fact, bare with me which I have a little chuckle to myself. Ok, done. Now in the same way when I thought Celtic were "at it" with their claims the SFA had an agenda against them it wasn't because I am showing sectarian bias, I think Rangers are "at it" by trying to claim the SFA have an agenda against them. It would be interesting to see the exact figures for this as I would counter that for my club Rangers bring in no more than any other club in relative terms. Obviously being in Paisley St Mirren will see a greater level of support for Rangers when they come down to play, that is to be expected as we are only a few miles down the road. The same, however, could be argued for Celtic. In terms of actual attendances, Kilmarnock have sold out our new stadium on several occasions, while Rangers never have. Lest we not point out that due to violence and unsocial elements of the Rangers support means we pay out far more for stewarding thanks to Rangers (well to be fair, it is both sides of the OF) than we would should neither team visit. Em.. ok, then...

The highlights when we beat them at SMP in December?

Check the join date. Pretty much every poster who has joined over the last 2 weeks has been a windup merchant. Now not that I am defending RM as it has it's fair share of zoomers to say the least but I do feel some of the threads shared here and used as point and laugh material are just people at it.

To be fair if no Rangers fans turned up at SMP next season not only would it make the stadium a hell of a lot prettier, we would save a fortune on stewarding costs. Granted pie sales would be down...

Well yes and no, obviously tax payers will cover the cost of policing and I do feel that it was a frivolous to have such a march, but in the grand scheme of things I do feel that the right to protest should be upheld.

Single you say....

No problems mucker, all water off a ducks back anyway. If you took P&B too literally or personally you'd have idiots resigning from the board all over the place.. I've got another revelation for you, I'm black. Granted that does mean you'll hire me to clean your office toilets.

I do have a mental image of the Dick Dastardly SFA ripping the stars from the crest of Rangers' Mutley.

Well if you did that we would have shit all over the pla.... ah.. wait...