GordieBoy80 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 In reality, it was not just the Angus sides. The likes of East Stirling, Stenhouse muir and a few others were affected. Rangers lodged a complaint that these sides were draining the resources , hindering Rangers success . They wanted these teams put in a regional league , well away from the top level.........Much the same as Doncaster is trying now !!! The vote went disasterously wrong for Rangers and they were forced to put up with us diddies for the foreseeable future !!! Complete fantasy I know but wouldn't it be great if those teams blocked a new Rangers team getting into the league ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Complete fantasy I know but wouldn't it be great if those teams blocked a new Rangers team getting into the league ? We will never forget........Our Chairman wouldn't have the balls though !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 We will never forget........Our Chairman wouldn't have the balls though !!! Shame, as teams like Brechin City and Stranraer mean far more to Scottish Football than Rangers and Celtic. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Put briefly ... In 1955 the C Division set-up (which contained mainly reserve teams) was abolished, as bigger clubs wanted a nationwide Reserve league structure and no first-team clubs playing against reserves. This meant the 2 divisions became 18-19 instead of 16-16, and the League Cup's old system of 4 First Division pools and 4 Second Division pools was disrupted. In 1964, Rangers brought to SFL AGM a new rule which would allow 2/3 of members to vote to abolish the league. They were leading a plan to get back to 16-16... by scrapping SFL and forming a new league without 5 clubs. Their elimination list was based upon gate receipts. The 5 clubs with the lowest receipts were Albion Rovers, Berwick, Brechin, Stenhousemuir, Stranraer. These 5 clubs - including my own - had been deliberately kept-out of the machinations. The 5, led by Stenhousemuir, obtained an Interim Interdict in the Court of Session. Stenhousemuir then pulled-out, fearing high legal costs, leaving 4. Rangers actually won the case late in 1964, but by then the momentum had been exhausted. Brechin proposed an amended rule, meaning any new league couldn't exclude some clubs of its predecessor. Stenhousemuir later donated the proceeds of a transfer fee to the other 4, to defray their expense in the action which saved them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Shame, as teams like Brechin City and Stranraer mean far more to Scottish Football than Rangers and Celtic. Talking for us alone here !!!! ........We could show them a thing or two about living within our means !!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Put briefly ... In 1955 the C Division set-up (which contained mainly reserve teams) was abolished, as bigger clubs wanted a nationwide Reserve league structure and no first-team clubs playing against reserves. This meant the 2 divisions became 18-19 instead of 16-16, and the League Cup's old system of 4 First Division pools and 4 Second Division pools was disrupted. In 1964, Rangers brought to SFL AGM a new rule which would allow 2/3 of members to vote to abolish the league. They were leading a plan to get back to 16-16... by scrapping SFL and forming a new league without 5 clubs. Their elimination list was based upon gate receipts. The 5 clubs with the lowest receipts were Albion Rovers, Berwick, Brechin, Stenhousemuir, Stranraer. These 5 clubs - including my own - had been deliberately kept-out of the machinations. The 5, led by Stenhousemuir, obtained an Interim Interdict in the Court of Session. Stenhousemuir then pulled-out, fearing high legal costs, leaving 4. Rangers actually won the case late in 1964, but by then the momentum had been exhausted. Brechin proposed an amended rule, meaning any new league couldn't exclude some clubs of its predecessor. Stenhousemuir later donated the proceeds of a transfer fee to the other 4, to defray their expense in the action which saved them. Thank f**k you're here tonight !! I just couldn't be arsed looking it all up ! Today's alcohol content having something to do with it !! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'd add that a couple of old-timers in the row behind me at Shielfield today were actually talking about the 1964 episode, and how they had no sympathy for those "cold heartless b*stards" who'd tried to kick Berwick out of the league. Of course we got our revenge in the end... not only did we and our small allies win the battle - but we gubbed them 2 years later in the greatest giant-killing in history . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibby82 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Last time I checked in here was a few days back, when the general consenus was that Whyte was a bit of a baws-oot genius intent on liquidating the club, creating a new 'Rangers' and making a few bob out of the deal. I haven't got a spare couple of eons to read the rest of the thread, so is this still the case, or has Whyte fucked up? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Am I right in thinking Rangers next game is away to ICT next weekend, and, aside from Papac missing by being suspended, this could be the first game Rangers play with players missing due to being given their jotters? Has there been any indication given if genuine first teamers will be culled, or will the axe fall on youngsters and fringe players only? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Thank f**k you're here tonight !! I just couldn't be arsed looking it all up ! Today's alcohol content having something to do with it !! Our Centenary History sums-it-up aptly: As they looked forward with hope, a bombshell struck. Glasgow Rangers suggested a new rule which would have meant the dissolving of the existing Scottish League and its re-start withBerwick Rangers, Stranraer, Stenhousemuir, Brechin City and Albion Rovers facing the 'axe'. At first the Ibrox club seemed to have the weight of football behind them. They reckoned without two men. One was a solicitor Mr Robert Turpie of Shepherd & Wedderburn WS of Edinburgh. The other was George Shiel. The Berwick Rangers Chairman told the world: "We are not going to be browbeaten. We shall fight". And fight they did. The five won what appeared to be a spectacular close-season triumph by gaining an interim interdict in the Court of Session in Edinburgh to block the Rangers move. Berwick and their fellow four in distress had every right to feel aggrieved. All members of the league had been circularised about the proposal - except the five due to be expelled. Headed by Mr Shiel and Mr Turpie they went through the lengthy and costly legal processes necessary to preserve their future. They appealed for support from the other clubs and gradually began to win some friends. At a momentous meeting in Glasgow, with George Shiel a major spokesman, the little five fought for their lives and won. Their future was assured. For Berwick Rangers, the resentment smouldered and it was not to die until they pulled off the greatest sensation in Cup history. Cold, heartless b*stards right enough. Edited February 18, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoriginalhedge Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Our Centenary History sums-it-up aptly: Cold, heartless b*stards right enough. When the sun goes down at the end of the day, we will remember them !! Raise a glass to Mr Shiel and Mr Turpie !! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdenbeath Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Our Centenary History sums-it-up aptly: Cold, heartless b*stards right enough. As a side note Robert Turpie was also the guy who fought and won the Shire's battle with the Steedman's to bring them back to Falkirk from Clydebank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 As a side note Robert Turpie was also the guy who fought and won the Shire's battle with the Steedman's to bring them back to Falkirk from Clydebank. A hero of the Davids. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McQueen Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 What will happen in the long run is Rangers will be allowed back in the league but only for giving up the 11-1 voting rights & we'll end up with the brutal 10 team league being forced through. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 One aspect i've been thinking about here (i'm bored) is the timing of the Tax Case. The Administrators want the club to continue in it's current form, and exit Administration in time for the 31st March deadline for European competition licensing etc. I heard the tax case won't be until April possibly, therefore any agreed CVA would surely not cover this money as no decision has actually been reached on whether Rangers are liable for it or not. Surely IF Rangers get through this Administration unscathed, by the end of March THEN lose the tax case, they'll be instantly fucked again. I would think this would increase the likelihood of them going down the "Rangers 2012" route (ie HMRC unable to claim the tax case money), or coming to a settlement with them. After all, i can't imagine the Administrators spending a few weeks trying like f**k to save the company, when they know full well there's a near-future decision on the way that could land them with a £75million bill. 1 admin = 1 set of fees. 2 admins = 2 sets of fees? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Jim Traynor suggesting just now the 'new information' the administrators mentioned will be anything but good news. He's completely guessing. The problem with sports journalists reporting on the administration is they don't have the knowledge or experience to really understand it or add much, if any,value or insight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Does this perhaps relate to Minty Moonbeams' solicitors? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 He's completely guessing. The problem with sports journalists reporting on the administration is they don't have the knowledge or experience to really understand it or add much, if any,value or insight. They are also blessed with the gift of poor memory. Listening to Traynor the other night, you could have been forgiven for thinking he had been anti-Whyte from day one, which as shown earlier in the thread is very far from the truth. Once the bandwaggon starts rolling, the real gutter hacks, like Traynor, would punch their granny to clamber aboard it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 If Falkirk defaulted on a previous agreement with HMRC, then HMRC were quite entitled to take whatever action they felt appropriate, they were obviously getting pissed off with us, that just emphasises the type of clown who was our M D At that time. I'm pretty sure though that Falkirk would have been making some sort of contributions and not having paid nowt for 10 months. I wouldn't be so sure about that. In any case it isn't the key point. I imagine Fakirk were further behind with their payments than Rangers are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
printer Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 They are also blessed with the gift of poor memory. Listening to Traynor the other night, you could have been forgiven for thinking he had been anti-Whyte from day one, which as shown earlier in the thread is very far from the truth. Once the bandwaggon starts rolling, the real gutter hacks, like Traynor, would punch their granny to clamber aboard it. Indeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.