Florentine_Pogen

From RTC :- Torrevieja Johnbhoy says: 11/07/2012 at 10:14 am rom Rangers Rumours. Anyone free?. Just heard that John Brown has set up a meeting at the Dakota Hotel, Eurocentral, at 2pm on Sunday with all supporters groups. He is going to explain what is happening at the club and his business plan for the future. Not sure who will be invited but I will keep you all posted when it has been confirmed.

From RTC Blog comments :- Tangerine Taysider says: 11/07/2012 at 8:41 am The credibility of Doncaster and Regan is taking an absolute hammering. We have: stevensanph says: 11/07/2012 at 7:39 am Congratulations on getting an excellent article into the MSM. The threat of losing the Sky income has been central to the scaremongering of Doncaster. Your article raises serious questions about the credibility of how he has portrayed the impact of losing Rangers on the Sky / ESPN deal. I hope that encourages more SFL Chairmen to question what they have been told, especially given that we have: A fantastic statement from Clyde. Clear, analytical, logical and devastating to the credibility of Doncaster and Regan. There is no scope for the SPL to no longer meet their obligations under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Incredible that the CEO of the SFA, the governing body for Scottish Football, has supported threats that have no legal foundation given the unambiguous wording of the Settlement Agreement. It is also clear that the SFA and SPL are putting the pressure on the clubs in the SFL to make a decision in a factual vacuum, a lack of transparency consistent with their interaction (or lack of it) with the media. How can they expect fans to be persuaded to their agenda when they are unable to convince the clubs? Doncaster and Regan, we don’t know why you are trying to ignore rules, bend them or delay action, distort facts or withhold information while bullying clubs, but we can all see that that is what you are doing. We have lost any respect for you. You say you are interested in what is good for the future of Scottish football. The future of Scottish football requires your resignations. Now.

Spot on PK. Just another effect of the power of The Diddy Collective, 'journalists' now having to work to earn a living. Is it any coincidence that Chick Faeces has been posted MIA ?

Actually, there are 16 shares @ £1 each. I, and other posters, have long wondered whom the extra 4 shares belong to. Re. the Settlement Agreement - read the Clyde document from yesterday. The onlyway the SPL could avoid paying the £2m is by deliberately committing a breach of contract. The SFL could then send us all to Hell in a handcart.

Longmuir being coerced by Regan and Doncaster to try one last throw of the dice. In fact, we even got their little tryst on film..........

Your post got me thinking........I'm thinking Ceaucescu, Saddam, Gaddafi and Mussolini.

The 2 statements that have come from Clyde FC ( the minutes from Doncaster's 4th July "presentation" and yesterday's proposed amendment document) have been a revelation and lift the lid on what those scheming, conniving, cheating incompetents Doncaster and Regan are up to. This is a bit of a repost but should be seen by as many folk as possible :- This is from the Clyde minutes of Doncaster's presentation last week 4th July :- The consequential impact on the SFL from the presentation was that the SFL would lose its entitlement to circa £2m per annum from the Settlement Agreement put together to compensate the SFL for the SPL breakaway, this was made very clear by Neil Doncaster. He told the clubs that if the SPL didn't have the money then they could not pay the SFL. The reality however, which was clear from the detailed figures, is that the SPL, whilst losing an enormous amount of funding, would have the cash to make payment; it is just that the SPL would not meet the legal obligation to the SFL as the cash would be used to finance the SPL teams. And this is from the Clyde statement today 10th July :- We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement. How the hell Doncaster and Regan can remain in-situ is beyond me. They deliberately lied and dissembled to the SFL clubs last week to try and scare the bejeesus out of them in order to further the Spivco case. "Without fear or favour" ? I don't think so. The second Clyde statement is a de facto vote of "No Confidence" in Regan and Doncaster IMHO. Interesting to see what happens at Friday's meeting.

Iain King = Succulent, I assume ?

Clyde's new statement regarding the proposals. Tremendous reading: The board of Clyde Football Club met last night to consider how it might approach the resolutions (see below) to be voted on at the SFL meeting on Friday 13th July. This update is to inform our owners and supporters and hopefully explain some of the complexities that face the club when carefully and objectively considering how we might vote. We hope that by being as clear as possible about the difficulties surrounding this situation that the people able to support the process act swiftly to do so. The overwhelming reality is that we are being asked to make one of the most important decisions for Scottish Football in a vacuum devoid of factual information, that vacuum having been filled with unhelpful rhetoric and scaremongering by the chief executives of the SFA and SPL. We therefore looked at what we were being asked to vote on, how it fitted with the principles of the sport, and what information we might need to inform a logical decision in context of the current reality. It was clear that the resolutions marked a clear departure from all previous process and custom and practice when considering admitting a team to the SFL, albeit operating within the rules of the SFL. It was in that context which we considered the resolutions. In reality, the customary principles of sport were not at the forefront of the resolutions.We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement. To assist the SFL clubs to take decisions in the right manner then the external threat should be removed by the SPL clubs, confirming to the SFL that they have not and will not instruct the SPL to breach the Settlement Agreement.Consideration was then given to Resolution 1 which we concluded required to be reworded to be explicit that entry was to SFL3. The reason for this is that once entered to the SFL in the manner proposed under Resolution 1, we understand that it is within the power of the Board of the SFL to place a club into any league of their choosing. We believe that, due to the intolerable pressure placed on the SFL board to date by external parties, this resolution should be explicit to avoid the Board coming under pressure from either the SFA or SPL in the event that Resolution 2 is rejected. It is also our opinion that Resolution 1 being explicit sits more appropriately with Resolution 2 which in itself is explicit about where any club might play.In terms of Resolution 1, whether reworded or not, it seemed inconceivable to the Board of Clyde that absolutely no information whatsoever has been provided to support the resolution. This is clearly a matter of haste and again driven by an external agenda, perhaps because Sevco have not lodged an application to join the SFL then they have not submitted any information. Whilst we have accepted that this is being treated as a special case and we are willing to run with this, it simply was not possible to conclude that we could make any decision at this time. The matter is made worse because of the extent of uncertainty which hangs over Sevco. There is no need to prepare an exhaustive list of the issues as they are well publicised, however the extent of outstanding sanctions that may or may not be levied against a club which has yet to obtain SFA membership, together with the increasing number of possible commercial and legal challenges to the transactions to date simply presents a significant risk to the ability of the club to fulfil its fixtures in any league. Given that some of these matters are in the hands of the governing bodies it seems inexplicable that they are left hanging. We are clear that for the good of the game that we would want a swift and positive conclusion that would see Rangers Football Club taking part in the game again and we would wish to be able to support a Resolution that saw them entered to SFL3. However, until we receive enough information to inform such a decision then we are being pushed into a corner which would actually leave any club making a logical decision arrive at the conclusion that Resolution 1 should not be supported. The SFA could assist the process by transferring the SFA membership to Sevco prior to the Friday meeting if they have satisfied themselves of fit and proper tests and have carried out their own diligence on the viability of the club and the various legal challenges.Resolution 2 suffers from the same issues as Resolution 1, in that no information of any sort about Sevco, not even whether it will obtain SFA membership, leaves no possibility of making a decision about entry to the SFL based on facts or logic. Clearly it is incumbent on all the governing bodies to make available all factual information they have available if they truly want this process to have any chance of being recovered from the current chaos. At the very least the business plan for Sevco and any other information that led the SPL clubs to arrive at a decision should be made available to the SFL clubs, and not with inappropriately short notice, although that point has as good as passed. Resolution 2 was where the challenge to sporting integrity arose. It was impossible to engage with this concept without continually bearing in mind that the SFA had already undermined the prospects for any integrity to be maintained by making it clear that failure to deal with the admission of a newco to SFL3 would be a dereliction of duty. In effect posting notice that no matter what decision is taken by the SFL clubs to administer their league, the SFA would not tolerate anything other than SFL 1, an equivalent point having been made by Neil Doncaster on behalf of the SPL clubs. The stated position of the SFA and SPL chief executives means that, whilst this club can have faith in David Longmuir to do all in his power to deliver a new combined structure that meets the objectives of Resolution 2, we have no faith in the parties that the new arrangements would be negotiated with. Their behaviour to date is evidence enough for us. We should not be disingenuous on our own position in terms of the question of trading sporting integrity for transformational change to the way the game is governed that is posed by Resolution 2. We have said previously that there would be no winners and that compromise would be required at some point. With this in mind, had we worked through this process and seen positive collaborative behaviour from the leaders of the SFA and SPL and we were challenged with backing Resolution 2 in exchange for revolutionary change that would truly benefit the game as a whole, then we would have engaged with that. As it stands, we have no information on the proposals other than that distributed in advance of the meeting last week and no confidence in the parties that will control the process outside of the SFL. As such we would vote no to Resolution 2.Resolution 3, as many have pointed out this resolution seems presumptuous as no invitation has been issued from the SPL to either club. Again, this arises because of the external pressures, the haste and the failure of other bodies to complete their own processes. As things stand, whilst Sevco/Newco was not voted into the SPL, it seems that the SPL still has 12 members based on the reported voting at the SPL meeting last week, albeit one of whom is in liquidation. It seems to make more sense that the SPL complete their processes and make the appropriate invitation for a club to join the SPL. We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.In summary, the complete absence of information on Sevco Scotland Ltd renders it impossible to vote with any logic in favour of any of the Resolutions. The default in these circumstances would unfortunately be to vote against. We hope and trust that this unacceptable situation will be resolved swiftly and will allow Clyde Football Club to support Resolution 1 from an informed position and will see Rangers Football Club playing in SFL3. We see Resolution 2 as a matter of trust and it would take a change of personnel and attitude for us to be confident that David Longmuir would be entering discussions with a group of people committed to a collaborative process in a spirit of genuine partnership.In the current circumstances our only decision could be to vote against Resolution 2. Subject to a satisfactory outcome on Resolution 1 we would support Resolution 3.The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:- (i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13. (ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13. (iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting. This post has been edited by Islay: Today, 20:06

That's uncanny. I was just giving myself a wee brainwank - next season there would be no SpivCo, no Doncaster, no Regan, no Ogilvie. Might be a wee bet in that.................

Hoi....don't forget Political Geography & EuroEconomics - namely, is Turkey in Europe.

The letter itself was actually a forgery. The obtuse point is that it brought down MacDonald's Govt. (Fuxake, even a wee bit of artistic licence metaphor gets holes picked in it on here !)

Your chairman will have received and had time to digest the Clyde statement by then. That document is a touchstone in this saga as it is basically a vote of "No Confidence" in Doncaster & Regan and could be the 'Zinoviev Letter' that brings them down.

Don't forget he's also Channel 4's main man. He covers the Syrian stuff amongst other stories so I for one am prepared to cut him a bit of slack, although why he can't retract his earlier tweet about Berwick chairman is mystifying.

This. However, I think a large part of the enthusiasm for Thomson's reporting is the fact that he is an outsider (although mother from Leith, I believe) and that he is a pretty heavy hitter with a serious reputation. To have someone with his gravitas on the case is certainly a bonus. We have been so used to the journalistic slurry of the Succulents that he came across as a breath of (much needed) fresh air.

This is from the Clyde minutes of Doncaster's presentation last week 4th July :- The consequential impact on the SFL from the presentation was that the SFL would lose its entitlement to circa £2m per annum from the Settlement Agreement put together to compensate the SFL for the SPL breakaway, this was made very clear by Neil Doncaster. He told the clubs that if the SPL didn't have the money then they could not pay the SFL. The reality however, which was clear from the detailed figures, is that the SPL, whilst losing an enormous amount of funding, would have the cash to make payment; it is just that the SPL would not meet the legal obligation to the SFL as the cash would be used to finance the SPL teams. And this is from the Clyde statement today 10th July :- We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement. How the hell Doncaster and Regan can remain in-situ is beyond me. They deliberately lied and dissembled to the SFL clubs last week to try and scare the bejeesus out of them in order to further the Spivco case. "Without fear or favour" ? I don't think so.

Fuxake, stop acting like a wee schoolgirl. 99.9% of the folk on this thread all want the same result out of this mess, namely the betterment of Scottish football. That is the macro-picture and that is where, IMHO, we should be focusing our attention. If we end up with league reconstruction / pyramid, then fine, we'll move on from there and hopefully get a more equitable distribution of dosh as well. You, Mr.Superhero, are trying to trivialise matters by only focussing on your own club, and more hilariously, yourself. No-one is interested in your daft wee stamp-my-feet-or-I'll-scthweam-and-scthweam-until-I'm-thick rants about your e-mails and your meetings. Where were you 5 - 6 months ago ? Your Shirley Temple act is wearing very thin. .....and breathe.................................................................

I think he's a wee bit needy on the attention front and likes a wee "Chase me, chase me !" scenario. Doesn't make him / her a bad person - just fucking annoying.

OK, I'll bite. Sauce ?

I have no truck whatsoever with that post. If you really want to know my position vis a vis Rod Petrie then feel free to scroll back through the last 1200 or so pages.

Going back to this afternoon's mini-debate re. Chairmen / Board Members of SFL clubs having a shareholding in RFC(IA), this is from elsewhere and puts the whole thing quite eloquently :- "Ah but it does. The shares on RFCplc(IA) still exist unitl the liquidators come in. The SFA have just said that RFC(IA) are still SFA members. Transfer of SFA membership is reliant upon having a league to play in. Holding shares in a company(RFCplc) that is looking to transfer it's SFA membership to another company(Sevco), and at the same time, being a board member of yet another company(SFL Club) and having a vote on whether company(Sevco) should be admitted to a league that allows it to meet one of the requirements of that transfer of membership, is a clear-cut conflict of interests." Edit :- Just read through the Clyde statement re. their proposed amendment again and it really is well put together. The main point though is this ; just take a minute to think about it, the fact that a football club feels it is necessary to make public not only it's voting intention but the very document upon which that intention is based. That is truly quite revolutionary. It wouldn't have happened, say, 3 years ago. Back then it would have been meetings in smokey rooms behind closed doors and only the Succulents would have been allowed 'inside the tent' from which they could then spin their sycophantic guff to the masses. Amazing. Viva La Diddy Collective !

Hear what you say, MT. However, I'm sure the guy doesn't need you to be his wingman - if he feels slighted, I'm sure he can stick up for himself with the same robustness that he uses to state his case.

Clot ?

Is he still knobbin' yon skank cumbucket ?