thelegendthatis Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) "It depends on the way in which they do it. Not just for the same old people who have been enjoying a privileged situation for years.Transparency is the key. Without transparency there can be no accountability and unless there is transparency we can never tell whether these investments are going to benefit the people or the already privileged few." Hopefully Walter, McColl and Park will read and take note. If not transparency, why not? Aung San Suu Kyi also said she would welcome 'ethical, responsible investment'. in Rangers. Edited June 17, 2012 by thelegendthatis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Rangers newco SHOULD be relegated to the lowest division in the football league, This is another misconception that must be clarified. Rangers are not being relegated. They do not exist any more. They put themselves out of business by cheating and therefore ended their own involvement in any league. What is being discussed is their successor's entry into the Scottish senior league system. It's not a case of how far down the league system this new club is being sent but how high they are brought in at. The relegation line is just more of the succulent lamb propaganda. They should be discussing admitting The Rangers not relegating them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 1904 according to this If thats the case then United were "formed" in 1925 not 1910 the dates on that site are the year the teams were INCORPORATED into companies house, NOT formed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 This is another misconception that must be clarified. Rangers are not being relegated. They do not exist any more. They put themselves out of business by cheating and therefore ended their own involvement in any league. What is being discussed is their successor's entry into the Scottish senior league system. It's not a case of how far down the league system this new club is being sent but how high they are brought in at. The relegation line is just more of the succulent lamb propaganda. They should be discussing admitting The Rangers not relegating them. Spot on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 You better go and tell all of the football clubs that aren't limited companies that, in actual fact, they don't exist at all. Or else you could just not talk crap. my point is that clubs and companies aren't the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArabianKnight Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Source? I'm sure it was in the tully's article after the arabtrust statement that ST was quoted as saying the club stood to lose about a mill if Rangers weren't in the SPL. However the scotland on sunday piece said united would lose about 700k and was without factoring in the return of eh classico. But then again there's a lot of different factors to consider and with the 3 players we have brought in this year surely ST has budgeted for worst case scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Rememebr when Ally was spouting off every day, about naming names (and addresses) and such like. Then he went quiet What date did he go quiet? What was the date when Walter told Ally we have our own consortium, but we will wait for Green to do all the dirty work and then we move in? And then Ally we need something that will turn the supporters against Green and kill his ability to take the supporters with him. Oh good one Ally. I will get Kingy to play ball. Then all we have to do is screw the best deal out of Green. "Good man Ally, you can trust me" (not) "Yes Uncle and you can trust me" (not) Together "We are the people". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Which comes back to the role and knowledge Mr Smith had about the club's use of EBTs - particularly in relation to the dual contracts/financial doping side. "I'm just a football man" doesn't wash here. And why the allegation that Smith received payment by EBT when he was not employed by Rangers is even more interesting. Bring back the lost RTC blog... I have it. It was originally posted on 24th May and was entitled 'Last Action Hero'. I don't know if it would be helpful to post it here in anticipation of RTC Blogger's next revelations. Edited June 17, 2012 by Florentine_Pogen 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caff Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 my point is that clubs and companies aren't the same thing. So from this......... 1904 according to this we're meant to extrapolate this........? my point is that clubs and companies aren't the same thing. You're one of these people that can't admit when they're wrong, aintcha weasel? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Well Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 1904 according to this Holy crap, even having a dig at your 'own' teams formation date. You seriously need to give this up as a bad joke, you have failed on so many arguments in this forum it is actually embarrassing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 1904 is their date of incorporation, not date of formation. A Motherwell fan would know that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) The saddest thing for me about this whole thread is it feels like a slow descent into oblivion. I have already binned Sky Sports and ESPN as I had no interest in watching the Old Firm away games before and if they're on the menu again this season that'd be even harder to stomach. I'll settle for following the SPL (and Premiership) on the Beeb and the Champions League on the highlights show. The self interest at the heart of the Scottish game is hardly a revelation but it completely stinks. I struggle to see what my club gain from giving shit from Leyton Orient a 12 month contract when there could be less mercenary lads in the 1st Division given a punt. The English will accelerate ahead of the Scottish game with the new megabucks Sky deal down there and the sooner our clubs top trying to keep up with our flash neighbours the better. When the new English Sky deal filters downwards, it'll be Conference players we'll be able to afford as L2 wages will doubtless rise. Is that really what we want? 6-04 hammer throwers coming up here to boot the ball skywards for £1500 p/w? Greed has destroyed British football, and the biggest loser is us in Scotland as we are unable to separate ourselves from the shockwave that lays sensible financial practice to waste. We see ourselves as their plucky little brother and want to eat at the same table as them. The new English deal is SIX POINT FIVE MILLION A GAME! f**k off Sky. Edited June 17, 2012 by Jim Leighton 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I'm sure it was in the tully's article after the arabtrust statement that ST was quoted as saying the club stood to lose about a mill if Rangers weren't in the SPL. However the scotland on sunday piece said united would lose about 700k and was without factoring in the return of eh classico. But then again there's a lot of different factors to consider and with the 3 players we have brought in this year surely ST has budgeted for worst case scenario? I suspect there are a lot of "if"'s in that £1m figure. If Sky pull the plug, if other sponsors do too, etc. I've said it before and I'll say it again - if we have mortgaged our own future based on Rangers' existence, then we deserve all we get. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagfox Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 If and its a big if that newco were dropped into div1 still in administration would they receive a 25 point penalty in line with the one that Dundee received? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Holy crap, even having a dig at your 'own' teams formation date. You seriously need to give this up as a bad joke, you have failed on so many arguments in this forum it is actually embarrassing. it's pretty simple. if a club can exist prior to the incorporation of a company then it stands to reason that it can exist beyond the liquidation of the company. the company administers the football club, they are not the same thing. i thought that highlighting the discrepancy between our actual year of formation and the formation of the company would make my point obvious. point 1 here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Rememebr when Ally was spouting off every day, about naming names (and addresses) and such like. Then he went quiet What date did he go quiet? What was the date when Walter told Ally we have our own consortium, but we will wait for Green to do all the dirty work and then we move in? Maybe someone sat him doan and explained that he was making a right c**t of himself - and he decided to button it? Naaaah! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 I have it. It was originally posted on 24th May and was entitled 'Last Action Hero'. I don't know if it would be helpful to post it here. There's only one way to find out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 That's one way to look at it. The other is that the SFA is genuinely pissed off enough with the SPL to take them out the picture altogether. And the head of the SFA is? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 A Rangers fan I spoke to a couple of nights ago was still adamant that "individuals should pay" - yet still furious that HMRC had rejected the CVA. Imagine the look of spaced-out-haven'tascoobiness when I told him that the CVA rejection was the best, if not only, way of getting an investigation started which would probably bring the previous regime(s) to task. Honestly. These c***s want their cake alright, but they don't want to be the person that either bakes it, or nips out to Greggs for it. They want to have their cake, eat it, and then lecture everyone else on the health risks of eating cake in the first place! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 17, 2012 Author Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Does anyone really think that Sky TV will 'pull the plug' on covering top flight Scottish football unless Rangers (as we knew them - big club with 50,000 at home games) are still in the top flight? No chance. Not what I heard. Reduced deal, re-negotiated deal? Almost certainly. 'Walking away'? Nope. More 'we need Rangers or we die' propaganda. Edited June 17, 2012 by pozbaird 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.