Jim Leighton

They tried to help you, you utter clown.

Can we get Tesco to do a sponsored bag pack?

And death to the passé printed press.

The carry on in Switzerland last season? Xamax got kicked out half way through the season.

Does anyone really watch shinty except for up finals?

You never know, you might even get a keyboard that works when they do the Big House Fire Sale!

FAO Tonsilitis, any reason for the -1? That's the most bizarre negative vote i've got! Must remember to negative you for f**k all...

His official site mentions moving to the East End of London from Trinidad aged 7. It's a good hoax though, wonder if any of the tabloids will run with it

It's a wiki hack, he has no Glasgow connection. He was brought up in London, not Govan.

Such as... Murder! Suspicion Saboteur Notorious Bon Voyage To Catch A Thief

Ocean's 1690?

Balloon bluenoses seem to think that because they are 'ra peepul' then their team should pay Championship-level wages for all time, even if they've got barely two farthings to their name. Only a handful of SPL sides pay more than a handful of their players more than a grand a week. These clowns are absolutely deluded.

I don't think Edgar Allan Poe came up with Poe's Law.

"For the purpose of debt avoidance" could be specified.

If you do a tour of duty you get a medal.

While Richard Gordon may be D List, he's hardly 'west coast' coming from the North East and supporting the mighty Dons!

A meaty ice cream for celebrating Rangers going down should be Beef Curtains, apt also as there's been a fishy smell around Ibrox for a while now.

Because it's potentially to their benefit, and that's at the heart of the SPL's philosophy. If Rangers get a one year suspension, then what happens to their current SPL place? Is that suspended or terminated? If the SFA were to expel them, then the SPL would have to follow suit as you have to be in the SFA to play in any of the Pro/Semi Pro leagues, but suspension is not the same. (If their SPL membership is terminated then I'd envisage the scenario I'd outlined being irrelevant as another team i.e. Dundee could be promoted to make up the numbers, or Dunfermline would be spared relegation. It'd be as normal, 38 games, split etc.) However, if the SPL are to take Rangers back for 2013-14 after serving a suspension of SFA membership (and therefore being non-playing members of the SPL for 2012-13), then the SPL place cannot be filled without disrupting other leagues - unless you think they can take Dundee for example, leaving Div 1 a team down, then relegate two teams in the summer? That isn't a likely scenario and I don't think the SFL would be too thrilled at having to carry the empty slot for a year when the sinners are an SPL side. What I'm outlining is a potential 'out' for the SFA to avoid delivering a KO blow to Rangers. That's what they wanted when they conjured up the transfer embargo, with Regan talking this week of the lack of 'pragmatic' options left to them. Of the tough options remaining: 1. Expel Rangers from SFA (which must lead to SPL membership being terminated). 2. Suspend Rangers from SFA for a period of time (be it a week, a month, 3 months, 6 months, a year, whatever). It's all about what (2) means for the SPL place. I would suggest that 'suspension for a season' means an 11 team SPL. The clubs will lose much more money in that scenario than they would if they come back in after serving a six month suspension. Therefore, because it's potentially to their benefit (and self-interest is at the heart of the SPL's philosophy) I would suggest the SPL chairmen would rather only lose them for 6 months, and would quickly forget of the inconvenience of a few extra midweek games. The SFA can suspend Rangers from its Membership, but I don't see how they can then void/award all their scheduled league matches during that period of time as that's not a punishment on the list, so that would have to be additional SPL punishment - is that in their rulebook? And on what grounds could they award wins for the opposition? Could the litigious bears take the SPL to court if they either voided their fixtures while suspended or if they terminated their SPL membership? A 6 month ban from all competitions with the backlog left for them to fulfill does punish them and it allows the cash-greedy chairmen to keep their current income streams flowing, for now. I'd imagine the SFA don't want rid of them either.

Everything you say is true, but none of it is insurmountable. It all boils down to one thing: Would SFA suspension mean SPL suspension or expulsion? If Rangers are suspended by the SFA for one season, what happens in a year's time? The SPL cannot just promote a Division 1 team to replace them for 2012-13 if Rangers are to resume SPL duties in a year's time. The league will therefore have to run with 11 anyway - unless you want to go down a very convoluted route of having 2 relegation places to still allow for the 2012-13 Div 1 winners and Rangers to come in. You could even argue for Dunfermline to stay up, but that still means 13 teams for 2013-14. Somewhere a league will be a team down, be it SPL, or SFL 1-3. Do the SFL bring someone else in now? What about Rangers coming back in, even in Division 3? Would they then turf someone out to make a place? No they wouldn't. So there's the scenario of Rangers sitting out 2012-13, and all 11 SPL sides being 3 or 4 games down (as I don't believe they'll promote anyone else unless Rangers have their SPL membership terminated), with the possibility of the club folding in the meantime... loss of TV deal etc... OR the SFA do their best to help everyone by allowing Rangers back in after a period of time to fulfill all their fixtures. 2 additional midweek games is surely better than none because of Rangers not being there at all? Sky would stay on board, everyone gets their cash, everyone's happyish. Rangers would have had a 6 month ban from playing any football and would be faced with a massive task of getting their games out the way or face further penalties. I'd love the SFA to expel Rangers, or suspend them for a year or two but I really can't see that happening. And as I've already asked - do they have the power to void matches under suspension? Would that not be the SPL's job? You'd be talking about the delay in revenue for 2 fixtures, one of which will be at home. Of course Dundee wouldn't be brought in for half a season. Have you considered it'll be an 11 team league anyway? No one's going to be brought in, unless the SPL kick Rangers out.

As already pointed out, the effect of the other eleven having to play 2 extra games within an 18 week period is minor compared to Rangers having to play perhaps 20 additional matches in that period. If the SFA suspend Rangers for a full season I'd be very surprised, and I don't see how they can void their games for matches within the suspension period when the SPL runs its own affairs.

I don't disagree but do SFA have the power to void SPL matches? (I don't know either way).

If Rangers agree to the embargo after appealing it, SFA should double it to remind them to take their medicine at first time of asking.

Did you read his article?

Having to play 10 months games in half the time. I'd expect there to be issues with player fatigue, also the psychological impact of being bottom of the league for a while. Do you think, considering their financial problems, they'd come back in for a successful season?

As always a good article, but I wouldn't rule out the prospect of Rangers getting a few months suspension from playing league games, then playing catch-up. The full year's suspension would likely kill them and that surely will be avoided. I wouldn't miss them but I guess others would. I would foresee fixtures issued then all of RFC's games being postponed until the suspension passes. The 6 month ban I suggested earlier would have the maximum effect - make them play twice a week until the end of the season. I can see 3 months being given though. I would suggest the lack of specified time on the suspension punishment makes this the toughest soft sanction on the table.