Nowhereman

It's a plus in that unless the owners think that they are going to make a decent bit of money nothing is likely to happen.

Never heard of Denny's Homes. Set up around the same time as Brabco 736 presumably with a view to take housebuilding forward if no-one else like Turnberry,Bett etc wanted to. As none of the bigger companies seem to want the land Denny's are making the application themselves. I suppose the one plus is that the club don't have an offer or even an interest from a third party which would give the current owners a big profit.

Some clarification would be nice but given the level of communication from the owners since they took over I think we'll be waiting a long time.

Possibly not but to be fair to the current board compare where we are now with where we were when they took over.

Anyone can put forward a planning application whether they own the ground or not although I would be very surprised if a builder made such an application without entering in to discussions with the club.Like it or not it is fairly obvious that the current owners bought the club with a view to making a profit on the land so if there's a possibility of selling some of it they are going to take it

Why no 15,17 or 25 I wonder

It doesn't actually say that on the OS but it is clearly the implication. If that is the case i will be very interested to hear how the relevant authority (whether it is the Council,the police or the club) can justify both sets of fans being allowed in for a Rangers game but not for a Dumbarton game

And tinkers ? and Gypsys ? Lot of un-pc folk in the Sons support it seems

You looked that up didn't you, go on admit it

The great Bertie Auld era, think it might have been his first game

Looks like an away game to Cowdenbeath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlmTD5_ieHI

----------------Grindlay----------------- McGinn--Lithgow--Graham--Smith -------------Turner--Geggan--------- Gilhaney-----Agnew-----MacDougall -----------------Fleming-------------- Job done. given how awful our defence was last year I'm a little surprised that most people seem content to go either same keeper and back four. Even after Murray arrived we conceded 45 goals in 24 games. It is an area that definitely needs improvement

Auld Son used to tell me that story. When the fourth went in the stewards advised that the Sons fans leave to avoid any trouble, which was met with "we can't leave now, we'll miss the fifth going in". Fifth goes in and all hell breaks loose . And there were only about 15 or 20 sons fans there. Almost as many police but they disappeared and left the sons fans to it

No it doesnt. A floating charge wouldnt show up on the forms you posted and if the holder of the charge consented the transfer could take place.

Does that mean his Dad was a player and a half ?

That's sky for you

Apparently we have signed Craig Moore from Motherwell

Not true.Dumbarton did drop out of the league but the club that came back in was the same one.The suggestion that ther was no connection is simply wrong. They didn't become a company until 1913 .

Does that mean that if we are talking about say Ally McCoist we have to say 'the The Rangers manager'. Or if referring to players 'the The Rangers goalkeeper' ?

That is true. But it probably only failed to deliver because it was so vague and still depended on negotiation with the spl. Not surprisingly the sfl clubs would not trust the spl clubs as they have proved they cannot be trusted. If however a binding agreement for reorganisation, pyramid etc etc had been put in place the sfl might well have voted for Rangers in division one.

Rule 13 13. MEMBERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRABLE Membership of the League (whether full or associate) shall not be transferrable, save that (a) a Member wishing to change its legal form (whether from unincorporated association to corporate body or otherwise where the ownership and control of both bodies are or will be substantially identical); or (b) a transfer within the same administrative group for the purposes of a solvent reconstruction only; may be permitted by the Board upon prior written application for consent and giving such details of the proposed transfer as the Board may reasonably request for the purpose of considering such transfer. The Board may refuse such application or grant same upon such terms and conditions as it shall think fit.

No he's not. If the clubs vote yes to resolution 2 then it will be up to the sfl board.

Which is why the clubs have to vote no to resolution 2. Because they don't have enough information to vote for it

There is no change to rule 5. It simply says there will be three divisions of 10. It says nothing about how they are constituted. There is nothing in the rules to prevent any club being voted in to division one