Brewing up a storm

Well, on the one hand Raith's statement raises some very valid points but on the other hand it completely fails to recognise the absolutely vital question around the whole Sevco issue that Mr Darroch so eloquently raised in Stenny's statement detailing why they intend to vote "yes", namely what the hell Stenhousemuir are going to do in relation to any possible subletting of their astroturf...

Jesus Christ. You just know it is a complete shambles when (even assuming that they aren't going by the legal Sevco title) they can't even get the name of their own club right: "76% Ranger [sic] fans vote for division 3". Honestly? You can't even get that right?

The people who have the ability to say "yes" or "no" to this at the moment are the clubs. Unless you can come up with a better way of persuading them to say "no" apart from a financial one (as it appears that is all that most football teams listen to) then that's the main thing there is. I also couldn't give a toss or not if some of the clubs who vote "yes" are "community" clubs (this generally means absolutely nothing about a club's relationship in its immediate locale except that it is in a small town) or whether they are small - the question is whether they will stand up to see the rules applied or not and whether they will allow special favours to certain clubs or not.

Err, don't get the logic of this whatsoever. There is a huge, huge amount of difference between one set of fans using threatened boycotts as a means of circumventing the rules and regulations and another set using it as a way of trying to ensure that rules are employed fairly. The thought, for some fans, of paying any money to clubs who ignore their views and don't give a toss about the much vaunted "sporting integrity" (or at least put grabbing cash first) is appalling. And who can blame them?

My son is a Stenny fan so the fact there are no forseeable trips to Ochilview if they vote yes is a complete pisser. The fact their chairman has the ability, which is sadly lacking in Scottish football, to string together more than two relatively articulate and correctly punctuated sentences (or perhaps their secretary is just very competent) should not detract from the craven nature of their statement. Firstly, their statement takes no account of the financial impact of any supporter boycott, probably relatively minimal though unfortunately, or the additional financial advantage they could have from Rangers visiting twice in 2013/14 both in increased crowds and sponsorship opportunities. Admittedly, it would be relatively shortsighted to assume 100% that this would happen (as Stenny could be relegated to Div 3 the same season Rangers got promoted) but could have been taken into account. Secondly, and miles more importantly, the talk of needing to look after Stenny's interests and not "punishing" Rangers is complete rubbish. Even ignoring the point about "punishing" Rangers (which has been made many times) effectively they are making clear that they believe in enforcing rules and precedents or not solely on the basis that it leads to benefit for their squalid entity. Thirdly, Stenny talk repeatedly about the financial difficulties they will be under and I believe these are probably relatively accurate (although the initial point in this point still stands). However, their argument is effectively a) we will be in trouble for year one, b) they will need to make severe cuts to manage in the short-term. I recognise this is a difficult situation but there are other teams who would be in even more trouble who have not cravenly backed down in this way. Nowhere at all in this statement does it say the club will be in severe danger of administration if Rangers go into Division Three, something I'm sure they'd have made clear if it was the case, merely that things will be tough for them for a while. Their statement that Rangers being in Division Three means that "Dependent on the success of hiring the pitch we would potentially reduce the playing budget in year 2" even suggests that they might only "potentially" (not even "probably") have to make savings to the playing budget! Fourthly, not a single mention whatsoever about the view of Stenny supporters. They mention that they had been contacted frequently for their views but do not state at all that (unless I'm completely wrong) the majority of Stenny fans would be against this. Not one mention whatsoever - instead mealy mouthed words about the board being asked their opinion. This statement manages to be very honest (supposedly) about the financial situation but not a single word about the supporters they should be listening to. Shocking. Sixth, it has been known for a long time that Rangers going into Division Three was an option - Stenny were willingly signing players at the start of last month so if they ended up lumbered with unpayable wages through Rangers going into Division Three it is partly their own fault. Trying to be fair, they'd be completely hamstringing themselves if they didn't sign anyone at all as it would make them relegation favourites but a) no mention of this in the statement about their wage bill and b) other clubs who have signed players have still come out with strong "no" statements. Seventh, there is not a huge amount of clarity around what exactly they are asking for in terms of a "stronger and more equitable league structure". However, given that their entire statement reeks of "we have no option financially but to allow this" they've effectively reduced any leverage they might have. Points 8-139 deleted in the interests of retaining some semblance of brevity Again, trying to be fair to Stenny, it is in many ways a relatively honest and articulate statement, but that doesn't make it any less disgusting. At least a few typos and grammatical errors would have added some humour... Edited to state that I was so pissed off I left out point number 5. Rest assured that it was damn good though...

Damn right! I have just been merely awaiting the one time all these years when the slightly irate ramblings of a bitter Meadowbank supporter might be of even less relevance to those in charge of Scottish football than ever before... PS Stoker and Livingston FC are still a bunch of completely hypocritical f**wits

Absolutely fantastic news about Rangers but hilarious to hear Stoker coming out with these comments. "Whatever happens, back your club"? Funny that when Stoker was supporting Meadowbank Thistle he was one of literally a handful of fans who supported the franchising of the team to Livingston and stabbed in the back all his fellow supporters. Doncaster has absolutely no credibility but to hear that coming from a man whose defence for supporting Livingston was that he didn't really know enough about the situation despite having attended Thistle matches for years and even co-authored a Thistle fanzine is complete and utter hypocrisy. Of course, this doesn't make Stoker's statements incorrect but does mean that he is appalling hypocrite who was fully in favour of the club he claimed to support being raped by Bill Hunter. He's no Turnbull Hutton. Apologies for derailing this thread slightly on what should be a day of relative joy, but Stoker can go f**k himself.