AndyM Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I wouldn't blame anyone either, each person's view is their own - but it's the rationale I don't really see in the case of a Raith fan. Being a fan is about support, loyalty and emotional connections. In the case of clubs which probably won't have a say in the matter... Berwick are similar... it seems incompatible to disown them when they couldn't do anything about it. In my eyes, there's not much support or loyalty in that. At the risk of somewhat going against the grain, no I would not be finished with Scottish football, why would I be? Hibs are in my blood. I really don't care what Rangers do. I don't give a toss if they're in the league or not. Even if they do liquidate and come back, they'd still be Rangers to me, a team whose fans I find generally horrendous. My own club through Rod Petrie are against Rangers coming back immediately as a phoenix club into the SPL and I'm happy enough with that position. I'm more interested in seeing Hibs staying up after two of the most appalling seasons in memory than what for me has been a moderately interesting sideshow regarding Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 When people say things like "Whyte did not buy the club with his own money", are they talking about the shares because he did use his own money for that. £1 to be exact. He used the Ticketus money to pay off the bank loan to reduce the monthly expenditure. RBS will not return the £18m. If Rangers sell season tickets as is their intention and the Ticketus deal is null and void, Ticketus will then become just another creditor to be paid 3p in the £. They must be feeling pretty stupid right now because they must realise that they were never going to be the sole trader of the season tickets. Craig Whyte may be a devious little tax-dodging shit but his ability to buy Rangers for a quid them f**k them up to this degree is admirable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I'm sure Ticketus only agreed the rights to a percentage of rAngers season tickets, 40% springs to mind...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmontheloknow Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) When people say things like "Whyte did not buy the club with his own money", are they talking about the shares because he did use his own money for that. £1 to be exact. He used the Ticketus money to pay off the bank loan to reduce the monthly expenditure. Was it not a condition of sale that he pay off the bank debt? It's not much of a leap to say the price of buying Rangers wherefore was £1 + the debt to the bank. Edited March 27, 2012 by cmontheloknow 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I'm sure Ticketus only agreed the rights to a percentage of rAngers season tickets, 40% springs to mind...... 60% according to bbc sportsound. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 See in this scenario, I feel like I think the way I do due to the very opposite!! If I'm passionate about my club, and have a bond with it, support for it and loyalty to it: what's it say about me if I disown them? Particularly (in the likely case of SFL fans) over something they couldn't do anything about? To me, that seems a dispassionate position. Sticking by them, as opposed to discarding them, seems the passionate position. I am passionate about football and passionate about St Mirren. But, it is not unconditional love. If St Mirren come to represent something that I have a problem with then my feelings may change. They are part of my identity and culture and I am part of their culture. But if that culture changes then my own participation may also change. If the SPL decides that commercial gain is more important than sporting integrity then I will have an issue with that. Specifically, if they decide that it is necessary to have two teams in the league regardless of what happens or has happened, then I would consider at least to some degree that the league primarily exists FOR those two teams. I don't want St Mirren to be part of something that has decided to be a vehicle for two clubs, merely because they are the most popular and generate the most cash. I think St Mirren's existence and success being officially recognized as dependent on THEIR success renders us as making up the numbers in their interests. The SPL is a collective enterprise, but it is also a competition, as part of the overall competitive structure of senior football in Scotland. There's already plenty that I don't like about it in its commercial reality and relationship with the SFL. Throwing out sporting integrity entirely would be a step too far for me. I am not going to make some knee-jerk promise that I would never do this or never do that again. But by the same token, I will not subscribe to blind loyalty. All I can do is make it clear right now - if Rangers liquidate and a new company is fast-tracked straight into the SPL via whatever mechanism merely because it will generate revenue, especially if that is regardless of any other rule breaches that are proven, then I would consider Scottish Football irreparably damaged. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Craig Whyte may be a devious little tax-dodging shit but his ability to buy Rangers for a quid them f**k them up to this degree is admirable. true...the elephant in the room that bidders cant get round is whyte bought rangers legally and owns 85 % ..he holds all the aces here regardless . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Sugden Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I am passionate about football and passionate about St Mirren. But, it is not unconditional love. If St Mirren come to represent something that I have a problem with then my feelings may change. They are part of my identity and culture and I am part of their culture. But if that culture changes then my own participation may also change. If the SPL decides that commercial gain is more important than sporting integrity then I will have an issue with that. Specifically, if they decide that it is necessary to have two teams in the league regardless of what happens or has happened, then I would consider at least to some degree that the league primarily exists FOR those two teams. I don't want St Mirren to be part of something that has decided to be a vehicle for two clubs, merely because they are the most popular and generate the most cash. I think St Mirren's existence and success being officially recognized as dependent on THEIR success renders us as making up the numbers in their interests. The SPL is a collective enterprise, but it is also a competition, as part of the overall competitive structure of senior football in Scotland. There's already plenty that I don't like about it in its commercial reality and relationship with the SFL. Throwing out sporting integrity entirely would be a step too far for me. I am not going to make some knee-jerk promise that I would never do this or never do that again. But by the same token, I will not subscribe to blind loyalty. All I can do is make it clear right now - if Rangers liquidate and a new company is fast-tracked straight into the SPL via whatever mechanism merely because it will generate revenue, especially if that is regardless of any other rule breaches that are proven, then I would consider Scottish Football irreparably damaged. Sums up my feelings perfectly. With the added factor that my team's pish I would find it incredibly hard to justify going back on a regular basis should a newco gers be fasttracked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Jane Lewis @JaneLewisSport Reply Retweet Favorite · Open BBC Scotland has learned that the #Rangers administrators will NOT back the other ten #SPL clubs over changes to current voting structure. The more things change the more they stay the same ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Was it not a condition of sale that he pay off the bank debt? It's not much of a leap to say the price of buying Rangers wherefore was £1 + the debt to the bank. Let us assume that that is the case. He bought the shares and agreed to other things as a condition. The fact is he now has the shares. Someone can say to Whyte that he hasn't kept to the full agreement. He can say yes he has, is trying his best to, he is working towards it, my best endeavours. All the weaselly words you can expect. But the sum of all that is the fact that he hasn't. So with his innocent face on Whyte can claim he did his best, but if you disagree let the courts decide. This will kick it into the bushes for a few months, and time is the pressure on the administrators and also would be buyers. While they fight it out in the courts the club will only disintegrate into a worse condition. Summer break comes, out of Europe, still in SPL???, players getting away from the chaos, players looking for the full settlement of the wages they gave up in their moment of generosity to the club they love. Think this will be due at the end of the playing season. And the supporters will become more disgusted with how their club has been run and start of move on, leaving the rump of a hard core support. So if Whyte can duck and dive and create public chaos and humiliation. Everyone running round like an idiot while Whyte and his boys in Duff & Duffer keep their cool and keep plodding away. Unless the money runs out totally, creditors demand action and liquidation is chosen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I am passionate about football and passionate about St Mirren. But, it is not unconditional love. If St Mirren come to represent something that I have a problem with then my feelings may change. They are part of my identity and culture and I am part of their culture. But if that culture changes then my own participation may also change. If the SPL decides that commercial gain is more important than sporting integrity then I will have an issue with that. Specifically, if they decide that it is necessary to have two teams in the league regardless of what happens or has happened, then I would consider at least to some degree that the league primarily exists FOR those two teams. I don't want St Mirren to be part of something that has decided to be a vehicle for two clubs, merely because they are the most popular and generate the most cash. I think St Mirren's existence and success being officially recognized as dependent on THEIR success renders us as making up the numbers in their interests. The SPL is a collective enterprise, but it is also a competition, as part of the overall competitive structure of senior football in Scotland. There's already plenty that I don't like about it in its commercial reality and relationship with the SFL. Throwing out sporting integrity entirely would be a step too far for me. I am not going to make some knee-jerk promise that I would never do this or never do that again. But by the same token, I will not subscribe to blind loyalty. All I can do is make it clear right now - if Rangers liquidate and a new company is fast-tracked straight into the SPL via whatever mechanism merely because it will generate revenue, especially if that is regardless of any other rule breaches that are proven, then I would consider Scottish Football irreparably damaged. Nailed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Jane Lewis @JaneLewisSport Reply Retweet Favorite · Open BBC Scotland has learned that the #Rangers administrators will NOT back the other ten #SPL clubs over changes to current voting structure. The more things change the more they stay the same ! Abosutely disgusted about this, we should have backed the 10 clubs imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Abosutely disgusted about this, we should have backed the 10 clubs imo. Has she also tweeted confirmation about the Pope's religion? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McQueen Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Obviously the OF wont change the voting structure unless Rangers are liquidated. Would Celtic agree if the other 10 said they wouldn't let their sister club back in unless the voting changed? Not entirely sure what there scared of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Has she also tweeted confirmation about the Pope's religion? Talk about being obsessed ^^. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Obviously the OF wont change the voting structure unless Rangers are liquidated. Would Celtic agree if the other 10 said they wouldn't let their sister club back in unless the voting changed? Not entirely sure what there scared of. It took Lieswell a while to realise it but with no Rangers his team would be at the mercy of the gang of 10 11. Our game is on it's knee's right now and if changing the voting structure is whats needed to get a larger more competitive league then so be it. Hopefully if we get new owners they'll see the bigger picture. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Abosutely disgusted about this, we should have backed the 10 clubs imo. Are you really surprised? Everything the administartors have done has been seemingly to make sure that your club are battered to death in full view of the public. I have no sympathy, but these administartors are definitely AT IT.!! Maybe Im just cynical 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Are you really surprised? Everything the administartors have done has been seemingly to make sure that your club are battered to death in full view of the public. I have no sympathy, but these administartors are definitely AT IT.!! Maybe Im just cynical Don;t think you are, this administration has never felt right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 As much as I hate to back up D+P on anything given their performance, I think they made the proper call here. Their job (sarky comments not needed!) is to turnaround the business as it stands or liquidate it. They have no real knowledge of Scottish football and no real concern for it's future - they shouldn't be distracted from their task by getting involved with this type of debate, if Rangers post-admin or Newco Rangers want to do it then that's entirely up to them. They're also right in saying they're trying to protect the business as the situation stands, causing further uncertainty which discourages bidders will not appeal either. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Talk about being obsessed ^^. What the f**k does that mean? 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.