Fasda

I totally agree, the fact that people do not "declare" indicates a problem.

I don't think so, but I would declare it anyway; I have actually declared shares in a competitor company at a board meeting, it's not difficult! It's basic governance on any board.

Their wee forum vote on who they'd like to see liquidated next had AFC and Dundee Utd way out front and Celtic not mentioned. Kinda cute really, fine line between love and hate and all that.

You would declare that fact before a vote...it's a governance requirement everywhere. Doesn't mean you don't get to vote, in fact it is the proper way to own shares in a potential conflict of interest and still vote/participate. All these guys are directors, they know the protocol, they are taking the piss.

Ah... the old "not 100% pregnant" argument.

Very true. I wonder how this "chairmens' shares" story would have panned out if they all another club's shares, CelticPLC or even AFC?

You're correct. Not that I trust Uefa any more than our lot but they only ever get involved after the event if it does contravene their articles. To be fair; if they did otherwise they'd be in every bun fight in every association across their remit. They're on the outside looking in at a local issue, not a big deal to them until and unless it becomes a fact. Of course if they did you'd get the usual zoomers bleating on about Johnny Foreigner calling the shots.

What about a Sheepshagging fan at newco home game with his Dons top on; solidarity, new start, bygones be bygones and a' that?

He says this as an analogy: ""When the greed of bankers dragged the world into this deep recession the right thing to do would have been to let them close and take the big salaries and bonuses.But we didn't because that would have amounted to financial suicide and made life even tougher for the rest of us."" Well spotted Jim, we didn't do the right things and guess what? We're still in recession and still getting shafted as the bankers get richer...read the front pages you useless chunt!

In peace, dinna shoot me! This well received on the AbMad forum. The fact is that amongst all the bullying and threats your man was honest and honourable. Good luck next season. Can I also add that your commercial co-ordinator (Laura) is very polite and on the ball.

Sounds like the right result. Newco will always be newco to us, although sevco is ok for now if you wish.

Sent mine back also. What's the point? I never volunteered to support the nowdeidrangers and I'm not doing it now via the SFA.

Sevco not in SPL next year got a 10 second slot in BBC1 national news. Got their name wrong but global brand right enough then.

I know what you're saying but it's not about a one off boycott; it's about losing repeat customers.

That's actually spot on. If the games up for any of us who enjoy the sport of fitba the SPL/SFA should at least have the balls to take responsibility for it. Newco's bleating fans looking for everyone to sort out their mess is bad enough.

East Fife used the word "credibility" which is getting closer to the mark.

Banks o' dee for me. ST holder and small time sponsor at AFC. Sad because I think AFC are saying the right things (no hiding place on the vote, they will have to go public) but what's the point? Might as well give the £ straight to Sellick/Newco and miss out the middle man. Contrary to Traynor and all the other Sellick/newco fans I think anything other than a no vote will bust a few clubs. Easy for me to say of course because I actually think they've been rumbled.

""About Me Season ticket holder and avid fan of the Rangers F.C. I've been amazed and saddened by the constant attacks on my club and it's fans. I hope to be writing about football and the issues which surround it in Scotland. I'm married with a young son and run my own company."" Sounds reasonable enough from his own description. Should have spent more time looking after his defunct team and getting the newco started rather than bothering with the rest of us losing money?

Jeez, just when you think you've got rid of one triumphalist mob of succulent lamb spouting weegies who blindly follow follow and never, ever, ever question the right of everything around their wee sectarian franchise , along comes another one.

No, they'll need each other in future years to have any chance of getting the status quo back, read the post FFS. Can't be the erse of Scottish Fitba with only one cheek.

Celtic are saying nothing because the SPL teams will ditch the 11-1 vote next season and they need the other cheeks to get back to the status quo and they need to continue their support for each other to get the duopoly back.

The last time the SPL 10 (remember them, the cheeks called them the "rebel 10"?) met in May(?) they stated that voting changes were on the agenda but gate share wasn't. Most of the SPL diddy teams were instrumental in introducing it and will keep it. The remaining cheek will however have to object to the inevitable binning of the 11 to 1 vote. Even if they are not so stupid as to "go to court" like their self destruct partnersdid they will take a legal stance, via arbitration, and they need to keep squeaky clean on the subject hence the deafening silence from them.

This is a great forum but I'm concerned about all the the arguments on whether or not the now defunct rangers did or did not do whatever and was it or was it not illegal. They're appealing the BTC and there's a few court cases kicking around but, as of 12th June, the liquidation of the oldco is on and a newco is attempting to form in some recognisable manner and find a way in to Scottish football. If we take our eye of the latter the blazers will walk through their joke plan so let's stop getting deflected by oldco p*sh, the remnants can sort that out themselves. On the other hand it is funny.

Also, I don't know about SFA rules but in a limited company in any business whatsoever the responsibility for governance (basically compliance with relevant authorities and law) rests 100% with the board of directors. There may well be audits by government or industry bodies (such as the SFA or HMRC) but the responsibility is entirely with the directors. You can go to jail if you don't get it right and btw ignorance is not an excuse either.

The most visible example of their general demeanour of late, we have all been subject to it and it might get worse. I would like to belatedly congratulate the stance your man has made. Raith, the dogs bollox for me!