madeirabhoy

not to me. how would you read it? dunfermline or dundee? it says the number of teams relegated gets reduced, and if this isnt sufficient, another team comes up. but this depends on whether you can retrospectively remove dunfermline's relegation. if you can, its dunfermline. its deemed that they are already down, its dundee. clear as muddy water.

but its not almost ideal for the SFL is it? why would Div 1 teams want rangers in the league who are likely to take the 1 promotion space at the end of the season. the extra income, if there is any, from travelling support will surely be outweighed by less of a chance of winning the league.

see if one of your sales staff is a kiddie fiddler, but he's your best salesman, is it reasonable to argue that you should keep him because you have to act in your best interests? no one is arguing itll be a land of milk and honey. that doesnt mean there should be any ifs and buts. rangers are an abomination. this adds up to the biggest scandal in football ever. systematic cheating for over a decade, followed by liquidation when caught, writing off 140 million pounds. its like enron but with a football. the way the football world should look on it is to automatically kick the **** out, and then point out how much damage they did to our game and to our teams, not to keep them in. if this was america, they'd be kicked out and then there'd be a class action suit on behalf of the owners of the wee clubs, against murray, kind, wee murray, whyte etc to pay up their losses.

the daft thing no one is pointing out is, if all SPL clubs all lose a similar amount of cash, the wage levels will just go down equally, and most of the same scottish players will be at the same clubs, just earning a wee bit less money.

um...no one. the rule is specific, it doesnt say early kick off, it says morning kickoff. how many morning games have we had recently?

but it is a punishment. thats the whole point of the rule. there is no other reason for the rule. its to punish cheating clubs who liquidate to dump debt.

no we dont. fact is, having a crack at champions league every year will make up any shortfall compared to having the **** and getting CL every 2nd year.

this is true they all wanted the blue knights to save them, lead by paul murray who sat on the board when murray ruined the club. they wanted dave king to hopefully shake off his court cases for tax evasion, come back and save the club from the damage caused by tax evasion when he was a director. they want walter back, a manager who signed players knowing they were on EBTs, went on a 20 million spending spree after they'd been papped out of europe and the tax bill was sitting on the desk.... how long before minty is back too, itll be like the A team back!

but thats where the law and common justice dont always meet. the idea that the last guy to decide something must be right.... 3 independent guys, none of them judges mind you, but 1 a top qc read those rules and thought they were allowed to create their own punishment. 3 other independent guys, one of them a judge, read the rules and agreed. 1 guy, a judge of no greater importance or experience or reputation, disagreed. result, 6 1 to team yay and yet team nay wins. of course the SFA could have appealed the CoS judgement, and by the law of averages, bearing in mind 6 people have said yay and 1 nay, one could guess they would have won, but that would also break FIFA guidelines.

well no, FIFA have very good reasons for insisting clubs and associations dont go to the courts. firstly, there are a lot of undemocratic countries in the world where dictatorships want to meddle in football. this stops them. more importantly, the law is a very slow and expensive process. FIFA dont want leagues getting delayed as decisions are appealed and appealed in courts. thirdly, its a game! rules are designed for a sport, not for businesses. as someone else said, you could have every player banned for getting a few yellow cards taking the association to court and having his lawyer argue that you cant prove beyond all reasonable doubt that he didnt touch the ball. funny how the whole of world football is happy about it except rangers. who do want to challenge every single decision. over and over and over.

especially since newco hasnt got the 3 years of accounts needed to satisfy SFA criteria.....

nope, i think all of scotland would be quite happy with that. rangers deed and cant cheat again. just strip the titles they cheated in and leave the rest in the museum. new club, by coincidence called rangers, playing in blue, supported by those who want to be up to their knees in ****** blood, starting with 0 titles, in the 3rd division. everyone happy.

im so glad charlie green has nailed the answer to the question everyone has been fudging What he’s suggesting, rather than get a CVA through that retains all the history and tradition, we should go down the newco route. I mean why would a true fan suggest that?" so there we have it, official from the owner-elect of the **** or new ****. if its a newco it doesnt retain the history.......we all knew this but its good to see it out there official like.

actually, and i did misread it myself once, but it doesnt. the home team only has to pay for the hotel if its a morning kickoff. which it never is.

can i ask why you think it allowed only 5-6% extra spending and why this wasnt a massive advantage? to my mind, you cant factor in the 'total' spend as rangers didnt need to have an advantage with the transfer fee, simply to be able to offer more wages. by use of the etb's the gain was far more than 5% and more importantly it was 'noticeably more' which is all it needed to be to mean players would choose rangers over other clubs who paid their taxes.

which is the equivalent in law terms, of being asked 'you killed someone, why should we not put you to prison....'because you cant prove it.......next..'

thats no different to saying that if i kill a guy but theres no evidence, i havent broken the law. the law says that any payments to employees must be taxed. by using the etb, the taxman cant prove youve broken the law, so yes its legal, as legal as having not been caught breaking any other law. the side letters dont break the law, they prove the lawbreaking which has happened.

no, the law never allowed companies to pay staff wages through etb. the law jus didnt allow hmrc to prove they were.there just was a loophole that didnt insist that 'loans' were paid back. taking advantage of that fact is no different to stealing without getting caught. rangers didnt fill in wrong forms or forget to tick something. by giving side letters they proved they were breaking the law. if they hadnt of given side letters they wouldnt have provided proof that they were breaking the law.

i bet you love watching the well. coz every time you see them, your team sticks 5 past them, and mccall never looks too unhappy neither....

1. nope, if man utd were getting relegated, they'd just get relegated. 2. dont believe the hype from the laptop loyal. the tax dodge was only legal in so much that the law was at the time badly written meaning HMRC couldnt prove the law was being broken. it has changed since. but this idea that all rangers did wrong was badly administer it, is nonsense. basically the law meant HMRC couldnt prove the money wasnt a loan. in real terms its no different to saying stealing is legal, its getting caught stealing thats illegal. 3. you sure its motherwell you watch? do you always have the radio on then listening out for ibrox. not that theres anything wrong with watching motherwell and caring more about rangers, stuart mccall does it every week.

so the SPL should only make decisions on self interest? based on that, should we reinstate rangers to the Champions League qualifiers coz they'll make more money than you from it? tbh maybe hearts are a better bet, certainly bigger fan base than well. Should we keep up Dunfermline and relegate inverness instead, they have the lowest attendance and its just too bloody far to travel. whilst on that point, let dundee up over ross county for the same reasons.

you sure you are a well fan? bearing in mind Uefa were only looking at cheating in one game, whereas rangers, by way of stopping paying tax which realistically could only have been paid by selling a player or two, cheated in every game. and it was relegation and stripped title..... and no, people were quite happy with a transfer embargo, but 'the people' didnt want that so we might have to go with suspension....

definitely jealous. im jealous you dont need to pay taxes and we have to. im jealous that you dont need to pay for players youve signed and we have to. im jealous that you dont have to follow SFA rules and we have to. but......i support a better, more successful less criminal football team so its all swings and roundabouts

a genuine question, whats your point as its not obvious from your pasted article

this was and is likely to be still the case, but it might depend on whats being said behind closed doors. fact is, and this isnt rangers fault but the fault of the SPL and member clubs, but its clearly a fact that the CVA offer is far lower than it would be if there was no chance of a newco being accepted into the league. the mood of the other SPL chairmen seems to be hardening if rumours are believed and you can take the vote today as being (only one possibility mind you) a sign that maybe they wouldnt vote on sanctions coz they dont want rangers newco. if that was to be the case, the cva would be an entirely different beast, with payments every year for 10 years-