Ric

Probably only those who aren't one of them... Looking at the creditors list there are still many of them who are looking for just a couple of hundred quid, yet Rangers and/or RFF can afford to have the pitch relaid, jollies arranged for Hong Kong and pay for lawyers. Shameful!

Do you really need to ask that?

IIRC it was actually the combination of the Laurentia and Baltica continents that formed Scotland, the former being the one associated with the current Northern American continent. Edit: OOooh, and the Highlands of Scotland have some of the oldest rocks on Earth, at over 3 billion years old.

Aye, because he managed to lead Sion to such a successful outcome. Just think if they didn't fight they might have had a worse punishment than docked 36 points and thrown out of Europe.

Immediately taking 1500 pages down to about 12!

I knew there was a reason I didn't go in there... Seriously though, it's a pub, it's in town, and it's going to be frequented by fans. Can't say I've had more than a couple of pints in Paddy's, but I never saw it as a Celtic pub in any way. There is one in town (the wig or something?) where I was once and it is definitely of the green persuasion.

Except they don't. Most fans I know drink in The Bull.

I did, ya dobber! This seems to be my best bet... Gilmour Rant

Anyone got a link to the Gilmour comments, down here in Englandshire the whole Rangers thing hardly raises an eyebrow.

Oh, completely. I merely said it was nice to see. Even if it's lip service it's a lot better to palette than Danny's comments about needing Rangers.

They certainly can, I think the point here is that previously Gilmour seemed to side on the commercial side of the fence whereas his latest comments seem to point to a move to the sporting side. Something that most St Mirren fans will take some, if little, comfort from.

I am glad that the SPL vote has at least put something down rather than being postponed (again). The "dealing with NewCo's on an individual basis" is surely a future banana skin is it not? Wasn't the problem with the SFA embargo due to the ambiguous nature of their rules, this looks like the same problem waiting to happen.

It's certainly pleasing to see Gilmour take a more pro-sport than pro-commercial angle.

I don't at all, but then I am in the diddy camp that believes they go easy on the big two while happy to hammer other clubs. They re-wrote the rules that could be interpreted in a manner the CoS saw fit. The failing for that lies not with Rangers, not with the law, but with the SFA for not writing rules that implicitly stated their purpose. They have shown a willingness to restrict their punishment for the benefit of Rangers, which refers back to my first comment. At present we have a senior member of the SFA who was paid via an EBT which immediately puts him in a position of conflict imo.

"properly punished" is wonderfully vague. IIRC they were docked points for each of the games the ineligible players played in. With Rangers it is very difficult to define what "proper punishment" consists of.

Certainly not a sanction available to UEFA in the Rangers case considering they are already unable to participate in this seasons European competition.

I've not commented a lot on this thread, but in my mind this was always the outcome (well not the expulsion but the NewCo), with the SPL (and/or SFA) more than happy to legislate for future breaches of financial prudence; shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted, as it were.

2 things... 1) That article is nothing but typical drama queen journalism from the Retard. Switzerland were not thrown out of the WC (or EC) and no Swiss clubs were stopped from playing in Europe other than Sion. 2) Our chairmen, should they vote - which they won't, are motivated by day to day issues of funding the club. Only a select few would be affected by a European ban, and of those it's unlikely that any will make much money from the venture (certainly going by previous examples). Rangers in the SPL provides more funding than not, and our club chairmen have positioned our clubs into the situation that the money is necessary in order to remain in the black.

I have to say I really don't know where this will go. We have the SFA who will be unwilling to expel Rangers but have no other sanctions available to them that "fit the crime". You have FIFA/UEFA who will be looking at the SFA but unable to act against one club. There is the SPL who openly acknowledge their reliance on the sponsorship money the OF bring in mean they cannot go cold turkey and remove Rangers from the SPL, and if a NewCo appears it will be accepted in replacement of the OldCo. Depending on which judge you wish to believe the SFA have either been in breach of their own regulations, regulations that had a complete re-write just a year ago and which all clubs (including Rangers) agreed to or are fully entitled to enforce any sanction they see fit. And finally we have the representatives of the SPL which the fans have absolutely no faith in. It's an unholy mess, and one I can't see any way out of without one set of fans or officials being hung out to dry. I think it's fairly clear that both the SPL and the SFA should clear their decks as both seem (certainly from my point of view) to be failing in their collective duties, but in the current situation what benefit would that bring? I just don't see where we go from here as the highest national organisation, the SFA, seem to be equally mired in this mess as the SPL and the SPL clubs. The only ones that seem to have avoided the shit is the SFL who are purely innocent as they have nothing to do with this and haven't had the opportunity to f*ck up.

If that!

First off, this xInfinity They could of course back down from their initial ruling as they thought that a transfer embargo was both suitable and a punishment available to them. In reflection they could now say that in comparison to the only available punishments then expulsion is the closest. That said, expulsion would obviously mean Rangers going through the appeals process (again).

That is incredible, I can't see how on Earth that ruling is valid. I can only presume the judge won't need to be buying any drinks down the lodge for some time.

At the moment, I would wager they have a considerably larger squad than at least half the SPL. There is certainly a chance they will be struggling to field players if the CVA fails and many players leave if the club goes into liquidation, however that comes down to the timing of this action; currently they do have a suitably large squad. I feel, and this may be wrong, that the SPL will consider their inaction regarding Rangers' CoS action as more of a strength than a weakness. Like the "water of a duck's back" analogy and if they were to react it would throw into question whether they have belief in their initial findings.

Your point being? Other than utterly smug, of course. All you do is demonstrate that the league is an odious and stagnant duopoly that even though the diddy teams fail to compete, they are not allowed to due to the weightings of both sponsorship money and voting rights.

The problem with that argument is that the administrators rather than reducing the wage bill at the start by making players redundant held onto them on the basis that at the end of May their contracts returned to normal and they were able to leave for a set fee. In that sense they have painted themselves into the corner. If they had made players redundant from the start then they may have had a case as clearly the squad would be threadbare at the moment. Currently they have a fairly large squad which in turn may or may not be depleted after the case is heard. Not only a stupid move by Rangers (or the admin, whoever it is who gave the OK to go ahead with this), but badly timed as well.