Nowhereman

Not true The sfl have followed their rules

Sorry my mistake. It's 48 hours for an amendment to a resolution. Either way it's too late

Different issue. There is a proposal on the table which allows them to go the spl and the clubs are being asked to vote on it. And they have been given 14 days notice of the proposal

No they should have voted them out and then left it at that. They should not have then bullied and blackmailed the sfl. The whole problem goes back to the setting up of the spl. If we only had one league governing body this issue would have been dealt with long before now. And the reason we have two governing bodies is the greed of our so called bigger clubs

But they can't add amendments without giving 14 days notice

There has been a lot of talk about clubs voting on whether Rangers should be in the third or the first division. The way i read it the clubs don't have that choice. Firstly they have to decide if they vote them in to the sfl. Then they can vote to put them in the third. But as part of that vote they have to accept that the sfl board can put them in to the first if they think certain conditions have been met. There is no mechanism for the sfl clubs to simply vote them in to the third division

There is nothing in the sfl rules to say which division a new member should start in

Spot on. The spl fans on here who think their clubs have shown integrity by voting Rangers out of the spl are deluding themselves. It is their clubs who have caused this. And now the whole sorry mess lands at the door of the sfl clubs who have nothing to do with it. I don't know how today's vote will go but I don't want to see any sanctimonious spl fans coming on here blaming the sfl if it doesnt go the way they want it to.

Straightforward enough. At a meeting last saturday attended by less than 100 fans a mere 55 indicated that they thought it would be best that Rangers get into division 1. However a previous online poll showed that 100's of fans wanted them in division 3. The board had never expressed their intention and issued a statement confirming this. They have stated that they will decide how to vote when all the information is put to them at the meeting.

I wasnt having a go at all. I am sure most Airdrie fans while being aware of the difference still look back on Airdrieonians history as their history. My point was that a football club is really something beyond the legal entity that runs it. And I am aware of the history. The irony is that you were allowed back in but not at the lowest level - something that Rangers might do and are being criticised for.

You surely must see the irony of your post. You talk of supporting Airdie for 30 years so you presumably don't really distinguish between oldco Airdrie and newco Airdrie. And although you wernt voted straight back in the rules were bent to allow you back in to the sfl. And you didnt even have to come back in to the lowest division. Sporting integrity is obviously something to be striven for but,as in life, pragmatism always comes in to play

Yes but rule 8 seems to give them some discretion 8.1.1 A Tribunal may consider and determine any alleged breach of the Disciplinary Rules and/or the Articles, and may impose such sanction(s) or other Determination as are provided for in respect of such Disciplinary Rules and/or Articles, or as may otherwise be appropriate in the circumstances.

The four old firm games a season started in 1975

The proof of side letters does suggest that there were second contracts though and that should be more worrying for Rangers than the financial stuff at this stage. The punishment for 10 years worth of dodgy contracts wouldn't rely on the other (cowardly) spl chairmen and as the SFA have already shown that they are willing to punish Rangers for wrongdoing proof of second contracts would be pretty major.

Brilliant album

It wasnt live. The whole match was shown about midnight

But they went to court in the hope that the judge would make a ruling. So how can they be happy that he hasn't done what they asked for ?

But that was the whole purpose of setting up the spl in the first place and the clubs who went along with it have only themselves to blame. How they couldn't see that back in the late 90's is beyond me

The following is the relevant part from the articles. If a club goes bust their spl share will be transferred 'on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, ' So the board give the notice but only after the company , ie the spl, pass a resolution that the board are to give the notice. The company also have to confirm the identity of the transferee , ie the new club. That seems quite clear that it is the company who make the decision and not the board. If it was only the board who made the decision why would the company be mentioned at all in this clause.It's clause 14.

Why does everyone keep repeating this. Stv and Bbc articles both say it as well as Chick. Here is the relevant article from the spl articles 14. If:- (i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or (ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an 9 effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation; then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place. So if a member goes into administration etc the share shall be transferred to a new member as directed by the board but only after a resolution passed by the Company in General meeting. So while it is the board that carries out the formalities they will only be doing what the company instructs them after a general meeting.So it is the clubs that decide not the board.

Agree with that but being on Twitter is a no win situation. Say nothing and you will get criticised, say something and people put two and two together and make five.

I wouldn't have thought it was anything to do with the SFA anyway but it shows the folly of someone like Regan being on twitter in the first place

So although there will be criteria if they are not published it would be very easy for a new club to get round them, 'at the boards discretion . . .' etc

Anyone got a link to the SFA membership criteria cos I can't see them in the SFA articles

Yes properly drafted and administered ebt's would not be contractual as they would be discretionary. The problem with Rangers' ebt's is that the tax authorities are saying that they are not discretionary and so tax should be paid. So if the tax authorities prove they are not discretionary and win their case then the ebt's are contractual and Rangers players have two contracts