-
Posts
5,247 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Store
Blogs
Everything posted by cyderspaceman
-
Agreed but this debate revolves around what will be shown in the annals of football achievement. The record books. Now we all know that there are two ways to score points over the opposing fans. "My team is better than your team' (now) or 'My team has a better history than your team', (and we will be back again soon)'. There will never be agreement amongst the fans on the Sevco thing. Only the authorities can decree. I wish to feck they would hurry up.
-
May as well chip in since it's quiet. Surely this bit ..... ""when the club became a limited liability company.""...... means that the club became a limited liability company. i.e. the 'club' stopped being a club and became a limited liability company From that point on, the 'club' and the 'company' are one and the same entity, never to be split assunder..
-
I think it's worth pasting on here for the hard of clicking. A thing we just noticed Posted on July 22, 2012 by Rev. Stuart Campbell In the debate over whether the SPL buys the broadcast rights to SFL games featuring Rangers, we’ve just spotted a rather interesting quirk. Sevco Scotland Limited was accepted to the SFL as an Associate Member, and will not be eligible for full Member status for four years. Rule 19 of the SFL Constitution says: “An Associate Member shall have no financial interest in the assets of the League and shall not be accorded any voting rights.” We assume “the assets of the League” include its media rights. (Indeed, as far as we can see those would be pretty much the only assets jointly owned by the League.) Rule 19 would seem to suggest that if the SFL does want to sell “Rangers” games to the SPL – or indeed to anyone else – not only will the newco not be entitled to a vote on the matter, but it won’t be entitled to any of the money either. We haven’t seen anyone else mention this. It seems quite significant.
-
Does nobody at the SFA check these documents when they are submitted, in order to point out any clerical errors? Not doing their job properly imo. Seems harsh. Also, is this request by the SFA for clubs to 'fess up to any dual contracts, just an excuse to enable them to say " They are all doing it, we'll call it quits"?
-
An old colleague of mine used to live on the south side of Glasgow and was a Third Lanark supporter as a boy.. When the Hi Hi died, he changed his allegiance to Partick Thistle and later he ended up living in Clydebank. Luckily he stayed loyal to the Jags and avoided seeing two of his clubs dying, although Partick did come close. My point? Sometimes football clubs die. Accept it and move on. eta : a wee snippet from the Thirds history The club was declared bankrupt after the Board of Trade enquiry and was liquidated in 1967. It was alleged that Boardroom corruption played a role in this outcome. On 1 July 1968 four former directors of Third Lanark were found guilty of contravening the Companies Act 1948 and fined £100 each. The investigation by the Board of Trade accused club chairman, Bill Hiddleston, of blatant corruption and that "the circumstances (merited) police inquiry". Hiddleston died of a heart attack in Blackpool in November 1967.
-
OK and I know this will get messy,. I agree with the idea that good must transfer with bad BUT what if I had had enough money to create a new club and requested the transfer of the SFA membership to this club. Would my new club be Rangers? I should definitely hope not. Would it be down to my choice? The SFA's choice? Over to you.