Wings Over Scotland

Where are you getting this "bought/sold as a going concern" cobblers you keep repeating from? That's exactly what DIDN'T happen. It's what WOULD have happened if the CVA was successful, but it wasn't. What Green bought was the assets of a failed company which is being wound up by liquidators, which he plans to use to create an entirely new business. Not the same thing at all.

You're not kidding. Twitter is awash with halfwits shouting "SHUT UP ABOUT 'NEWCO'! WE ARE THE SAME CLUB WE ALWAYS WERE - GLASGOW RANGERS FC!", seemingly unaware that the club has NEVER been called "Glasgow" Rangers...

Stable door "to be bolted soon": http://wingsland.podgamer.com/stable-door-to-be-bolted-soon/

Posters on RangersMedia are braindead cretins who called for Stewart Regan to be murdered earlier today, and anything they assert can generally be safely held to be the opposite of the truth. But that notwithstanding, the transfer embargo is only illegal IF Sevco don't agree to it. The SFA can't impose it as such, but if they and Sevco agree, all nice-like, that it should just happen to happen when they join the SFA, everything's coolio, daddio.

Serious question: can anyone work out what it is the SFA are trying to achieve now? http://wingsland.podgamer.com/with-terror-and-with-fear/ (With bonus DISCO TUNES!)

What will the team that plays Brechin City a week on Saturday be called? http://wingsland.podgamer.com/brechin-city-vs-tbc/

We're not sure some people are going to be on the pitch, and it's definitely not all over: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-division-three-bears/

I don't think there's such a thing as "for certain". Nobody knows the current plan, and whatever it is the clubs could change it at the meeting.

Depends on your interpretation of the SFL email. At present, it seems as though the clubs can accept resolution (i), admitting Sevco into the league, but can reject resolution (ii), which permits the Board to parachute them into Division 1. My personal view is that the clubs will overwhelmingly reject resolution (ii) unless heavily amended. However, I also think that many clubs are so angry about the whole affair that if resolution (ii) ISN'T amended, they might just reject resolution (i) as well, throwing Sevco FC out of senior Scottish football entirely.

By my calculations, today's news from Annan Athletic means it's now impossible for Sevco FC to get the required 15 votes to secure admission to SFL1. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/obligatory-rangers-post-of-the-day/

An open letter to SFL chairmen: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/an-open-letter-to-sfl-chairmen/

Debunking the "SPL2" myth, and some others: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/straightening-the-record/

That would be the SPL, not the SFL...

http://wingsland.podgamer.com/quick-number-crunching/ Sky TV has somewhere in the region of 1 million subscribers in Scotland, of whom approximately 50% will also be Sky Sports subscribers. Assuming all subscribers, both Sports and non-Sports, have the most basic package available (£21.50/month without Sports, £42.50/month with), that means Sky’s gross domestic-viewer revenue in Scotland is roughly £32m/month, or £384m/year. The deal Sky signed with the Scottish Premier League for live broadcast rights over the next five years will see it pay the SPL around £1.3m/month, or £16m/year. Should Sky pull out of the TV deal entirely in the event of Sevco Rangers FC being placed in SFL3 (or worse), and some subscribers cancel their service – either in anger or simply because it no longer includes Scottish football – the proportion of Scottish customers leaving which would lead to Sky making a net loss is just over 4%. If we restrict ourselves to Sky Sports subscribers alone, and assume that they only cancel their Sports package (keeping their other channels), the figure is 13%. Or put another way, if Sky completely abandon Scottish football they need to still hang onto almost 90% of their Sports subscribers in Scotland in order not to lose money. Just thinking out loud.

They don't HAVE to, no. The SFL's rulebook is an incredibly vague document that essentially lets them do whatever they like if they can get a majority to vote for it.

I've put up a couple of polls on my front page: what SHOULD the SFL do next week, and what WILL they do? Would greatly appreciate votes. Will also be posting to other forums, including Rangers if I can find one that actually allows you to join. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/

The customer is always scum: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-customer-is-always-scum/

Our line-by-line analysis of the "SFL1" proposal document: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/the-lead-parachute/

Don't panic - Rangers will NOT be playing in SFL1 next season. Explanation and mildly amusing picture here: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/stitch-up-for-frankenstein/

I did a quick analysis, and it seems like pretty much NOBODY is going to turn up at SPL matches next season: http://wingsland.pod...-this-straight/

Maureen Leslie of MLM Solutions (as seen on Newsnight Scotland) just did an hour-long webchat answering questions about the Rangers liquidation. I've put a transcript up: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/rangers-insolvency-qa/

No, the players' registrations are held by the SFA. They can choose to move to the newco if they want, and continue playing on their previous terms and salaries.

New blog by me: Why Charles Green can't lose, no matter what Rangers fans/Walter Smith/Ally McCoist do. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/charles-greens-win-win-game/

See the blog post I linked to on the prevous page - in fact, as far as I can ascertain insolvency law allows them to just take over the old name, as the club was bought from liquidation.

Just in case anyone's feeling a bit too happy at the moment: http://wingsland.podgamer.com/new-rangers-same-as-the-old-rangers/ (I'm working on the assumption that as Green says he's completed the purchase, that means he hasn't.)