7-2 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 There are quite a few who have left/out of contract from the list posted earlier in this thread. There are many more who will be sold due to the arrangement made by D&P. If Rangers are playing in the SPL next season there is every chance they wont be able to fulfill fixtures. What do we do then? Punish them again for their failure to field a team? You'd be allowed to sign players 18 and under. There would no reason why you couldn't have a full squad to see you through a season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The "normal" laws just do not apply in a sporting context. It would be a farce if they did. For example, if you are slide tackled on a football pitch you get up and get on with the game. If you are slide tackled whilst walking down Buchannan Street your call plod. If I was dribbling a ball down Buchanan Street, I would fully expect to be slide tackled! I get your point though 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 There are quite a few who have left/out of contract from the list posted earlier in this thread. There are many more who will be sold due to the arrangement made by D&P. If Rangers are playing in the SPL next season there is every chance they wont be able to fulfill fixtures. What do we do then? Punish them again for their failure to field a team? You're hooking a fair few with this one, No8 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) There are quite a few who have left/out of contract from the list posted earlier in this thread. There are many more who will be sold due to the arrangement made by D&P. If Rangers are playing in the SPL next season there is every chance they wont be able to fulfill fixtures. What do we do then? Punish them again for their failure to field a team? I believe Livi could not guarantee they could fulfill their fixture list and that is why they were punted down to the third, there is a precedent for such scenarios but as pointed out to you in four or five posts it is doubtful that you will reach that stage. Edited May 29, 2012 by stonedsailor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Absolutely, this is about more than just the current situation, I think. It's trying to show the SFA that RFC are still the bosses and that, when , they are back in the SPL on an even keel, they will still dictate policy. If the SFA kick 'em oot, will the Cockwomble start a breakaway movement to move the SPL to another jurisdiction, the Scottish football will end up in a situation like boxing with hunners (no pun intended) o' ruling bodies? I'd pay to be in Doncaster's office when the call comes through that RFC have been expelled from SFA membership. In the office of Neil Doncaster the COCKWOMBLE, on the day of destiny: "Hello? Oh hi there? What? Rangers have been expelled by the SFA? That is unfortunate, but I'm sure that won't affect their place in the SPL next season." "What? And Ibrox has been seized by the Inland Revenue. Well that might cause some fixture delays, but I don't see any problems with Rangers there." "All the players have been sold? Including the under 18s? For spare part surgery? I'm sure the SPL sub-committee will look into this and something can be worked out so if doesn't cause any delays to the release of the fixtures list in time for the 2012/13 kick off." "Why are you asking if I've been licking toads again? Look, just because Rangers have no ground or team and are up to their eyeballs in debt doesn't mean that they cannot continue playing in the SPL - I mean, c'mon, we have to think about the integrity of Scottish football here, don't we?" "Hello? Hello?" -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Rangers do not have a large squad Hilarious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I would agree with that but it's an entirely ridiculous argument when the rules are as clear as they are. Surely not worth contesting in court. I agree. But here we are! I read on one of the blogs over the weekend that, if this was a case of law, Rangers would stand a fair chance of "winning". Something to do with contracts that arent specific, or are open to interpretation, ie we reserve the right to do what we want, can favour the party who didnt write the contract. Of course, this isnt a legal contract, as such. Either D&Ps lawyers have something up there sleeves or they have massively, massively dropped the ball on this one 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monrovianmonk Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Martin Williams @Martin1Williams#Rangers Indications are it is just a 1p in pound CVA offer. Which means creditors getting 100th of what they're owed. 70% need to agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 There are quite a few who have left/out of contract from the list posted earlier in this thread. There are many more who will be sold due to the arrangement made by D&P. If Rangers are playing in the SPL next season there is every chance they wont be able to fulfill fixtures. What do we do then? Didn't Dundee field trialists from the juniors last season? There is no reason why Rangers can't fulfill their fixtures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 How many players do Rangers have under contract for next year?? Rangers can also re-sign players currently on their books and Greene's claims are that they will reduce the wage bill to £11m. Most clubs in the SPL don't even turn over that amount of money. You may have to field teams that will struggle due to lack of ability and experience but that's tough luck I'm afraid!! I agree with your final point. We will be fielding a much weakened team next season and we have nobody to blame but ourselves...Well Whyte and SDM imo but that is another argument..the problem comes when the out of contract players move on and the players with 'get out' clauses leave. The 40 players named earlier could ne nearly half that number by the time the season kicks off. Carrying this on there is a very real possibility that Rangers could finish outside the top 6 which means problems with the TV deal which then will punish every club in the league through loss of revenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I believe Livi could not guarantee they could fulfill their fixture list and that is why they were punted down to the third, there is a precedent for such scenarios but as pointed out to you in four or five posts it is doubtful that you will reach that stage. Thats true, but it was more of a financial guarantee the SFL were looking for ie can you afford to pay your players all season. Slightly different, I guess. In the office of Neil Doncaster the COCKWOMBLE, on the day of destiny: "Hello? Oh hi there? What? Rangers have been expelled by the SFA? That is unfortunate, but I'm sure that won't affect their place in the SPL next season." "What? And Ibrox has been seized by the Inland Revenue. Well that might cause some fixture delays, but I don't see any problems with Rangers there." "All the players have been sold? Including the under 18s? For spare part surgery? I'm sure the SPL sub-committee will look into this and something can be worked out so if doesn't cause any delays to the release of the fixtures list in time for the 2012/13 kick off." "Why are you asking if I've been licking toads again? Look, just because Rangers have no ground or team and are up to their eyeballs in debt doesn't mean that they cannot continue playing in the SPL - I mean, c'mon, we have to think about the integrity of Scottish football here, don't we?" "Hello? Hello?" That is the most cockwomble picture of him Ive seen yet 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Sludden Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 No tweets from the court of session today or any news reports? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Martin Williams @Martin1Williams#Rangers Indications are it is just a 1p in pound CVA offer. Which means creditors getting 100th of what they're owed. 70% need to agree. Who is this guy? Isnt it pretty common knowledge that its 75% Didn't Dundee field trialists from the juniors last season? There is no reason why Rangers can't fulfill their fixtures. No trialists allowed in the big league 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Didn't Dundee field trialists from the juniors last season? There is no reason why Rangers can't fulfill their fixtures. They cant if they cant register these players...Is there not a ruling against trialists in the SPL Edit to add...You just stick to the knitting Big Chap Edited May 29, 2012 by No8. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forkboy Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Who is this guy? Isnt it pretty common knowledge that its 75% According to his Twitter page he is "Senior news reporter at The Herald, the Scottish quality daily paper" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Didn't Dundee field trialists from the juniors last season? There is no reason why Rangers can't fulfill their fixtures. True, there's nothing to prevent Rangers playing trialists in the SFL or junior leagues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamdunk Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Rangers should be punished no matter the outcome of the CoS case. We can't have a situation where participants can take each other / ruling bodies to court when there is a decision they don't like. Where would it stop? CoS case if someone is sent off? CoS case about whether a ball crossed the goal line or not? etc The "normal" laws just do not apply in a sporting context. It would be a farce if they did. For example, if you are slide tackled on a football pitch you get up and get on with the game.If you are slide tackled whilst walking down Buchannan Street your call plod. Get the **** booted in the sack and told not to come back! LOL. Didn't Celtic go to court over the concurrent touchline ban for Lennon? Or was that just an appeal with the sfa? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caff Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) I agree with your final point. We will be fielding a much weakened team next season and we have nobody to blame but ourselves...Well Whyte and SDM imo but that is another argument..the problem comes when the out of contract players move on and the players with 'get out' clauses leave. The 40 players named earlier could ne nearly half that number by the time the season kicks off. Carrying this on there is a very real possibility that Rangers could finish outside the top 6 which means problems with the TV deal which then will punish every club in the league through loss of revenue Nice try sunshine but I aint falling for your fishing trip. Yer talking baws. Everyone here (including yourself) know it. Edited May 29, 2012 by Caff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 They cant if they cant register these players...Is there not a ruling against trialists in the SPL Got to love your optimism No8. More blind faith than a religious zealot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 1338289141[/url]' post='6282968']Martin Williams @Martin1Williams#Rangers Indications are it is just a 1p in pound CVA offer. Which means creditors getting 100th of what they're owed. 70% need to agree. A token gesture, or can't they offer a ha'penny in the pound? 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.