cyderspaceman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 From the BBC Syria: Annan holds 'constructive' talks with Assad What's going on? Does Thommo know? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 No prob.... Hope this helps Ok, agreed. Want Div3 placement even more now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedgecutter Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) http://www.scottishf...teria%20(2).pdf Section 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 clearly state that the club MUST have 3 years worth of accounts and that these accounts MUST be provided no later than the 30th of April 2012. Also a must is all the insurances needed for players, staff and the public. As well as documentation to show that the club has access to a ground and the right to play there. If absolutely none of these things have been proven, NONE OF THEM, then how is it possible to vote rankers 2.0 into the SFL???? Whilst the governing bodies make up the rules as they go along surely this would be the biggest piss take ever and will never be forgotten? If I was Spartans or Cove Rangers etc I would be getting in touch with my lawyers and getting the courts involved at what is clearly illegal activities. Why has no-one asked questions of Regan, Doncaster, etc and asked how the hell rankers 2.0 can get into the SFL when they meet almost none of their own criteria? Just me or is that document just for applying for a national club licence? If so, clubs don't need one to play in the SFL, Brechin being one example (correct me if I'm thinking about another kind of licence though). The SFA would be as well giving Sevco a licence to do whatever the f*** they like based on what we've seen so far. Edited July 9, 2012 by Hedgecutter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Fair one, but original point is that newco cannot survive on sfl three income. Personally I doubt they can even survive sfl one bearing in mind they also have to pay hughie back 5.5 million who knows terms and interest on that. They have no lines of credit indeed struggled just to get a corporate account. For the suits to corrupt Scottish football for such a basket case is still staggering! The £5.5m purchase price is not a debt. 'Rangers' don't owe Green's consortium £5.5m at any rate of interest. 'Rangers' ARE Green's consortium - they wholly own the Limited company.. In the short to medium term, the consortium will make money by floating the company (I believe Green personally is to be given a sizeable number of shares). They will not simply put all the money from the share issue into Rangers, but will take a profit from the proportion of the Company they are selling.. In the medium to long-term the consortium will see the value of the shareholding they retain increase provided the business in successful. In the medium to long term they will then make their money upon exit by (they hope) selling their remaining shareholding for much more than the original purchase price. Edited July 9, 2012 by Claymores 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) I think they cant act before a conclusion has been reached. Can they ? You're correct. Not that I trust Uefa any more than our lot but they only ever get involved after the event if it does contravene their articles. To be fair; if they did otherwise they'd be in every bun fight in every association across their remit. They're on the outside looking in at a local issue, not a big deal to them until and unless it becomes a fact. Of course if they did you'd get the usual zoomers bleating on about Johnny Foreigner calling the shots. Edited July 9, 2012 by Fasda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 My contention is that the sfa and spl know this and have taken upon themselves to try to save newco no matter the costs to the sport as a whole here. Maybe they are just inept or maybe having been brought up in England with limited coverage of the history of Scottish footy they genuinely believe the of is Scottish footy but it isn't their job to save newco...it's the job of newcos board. The problem is, and Im not defending them for one moment, that they will see it as their job because they cant envisage Scottish football without Rangers ... or more accurately, without the money Rangers brings in. The fact that Scottish football has been allowed to get into this position is the saddest part of this whole saga Just me or is that document just for applying for a national club licence? If so, clubs don't need one to play in the SFL (Brechin being one example). Yes, that is the club licence requirements. Its been pointed out on here several times that there is nothing in the SFL rules stating 3 years accounts are mandatory. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borys Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Has this been posted? http://www.sportingl...r-important-day Longmuir ready for important day Scottish Football League chief executive David Longmuir hopes on Friday to see a resolution to the problem of Rangers newco which will"be for the betterment" of the game in the future. The relaunched Govan club will discover at the end of the week whether they will be playing in the Irn-Bru First Division or Third Division next season. The vast majority of Ibrox fans favour a fresh start in the bottom tier after last week's failed bid to remain in the Scottish Premier League. However, the First Division looks the likely destination after Scottish Football Association chief executive Stewart Regan claimed that dire financial consequences meant he could not allow AllyMcCoist's side to resume life in Division Three. Longmuir expects to meet with Regan and Scottish Premier League chief executive Neil Doncaster over the next few days before the decision about Rangers newco is taken by the SPL [typo? shouldn't it say SFL?] board, on behalf of its members, who would then look forward to a package of reforms which are likely to include the re-introduction of play-offs and changes to the distribution of finances and votes. Longmuir said: "Friday is a very important day for Scottish football, I will let others judge just how important. "I expect to have meetings with the SFA and the SPL this week. "We hope to achieve an agreement which will be for the betterment of the game in Scotland." [loud of cringeworthy bollocks incoming] Former Rangers striker John MacDonald, however, is baffled by the whole situation and claims the Ibrox club have been subject to a "witch hunt". MacDonald, who played for the Govan club in the late 1970s and1980s, said: "Are there any rules or are they making them up as they go along? "Any notions or talk of sporting integrity has gone right out of the window. "Rangers really should start in the Third Division and most fans want that so there will be no comeback in years to come. "But Stewart Regan has held a gun to the head of the SFL clubs by more or less saying they have to vote Rangers into the First Division. "So it looks like the club will be in the First Division next season." Borys Edited July 9, 2012 by Borys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Disagree about the second point, The pyramid structure ensures that clubs finishing at the bottom of the 4 league structure are replaced by new clubs from other leagues.It's not expansion. Ross is advocating protectionism. In the longer term the pyramid would be what we need. At this stage, all the hot air about pyramids, playoffs, bribes are all deliberate distractions. Attempting to drag us away from the core issues. We have a toothless pathetic governing body driven by personal club loyalties. The only decisions they are capable of making is when a cup draw will take place, anything beyond that is beyond their skill set. A failed business model in the form of the SPL. A national game led by the nose by 2 major clubs, one of which doesn't exist anymore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBeither Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 From a questionably reliable source Mr Green has 2 'silent partners' Craig Whyte, and Ticketus If true.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 By my calculations, today's news from Annan Athletic means it's now impossible for Sevco FC to get the required 15 votes to secure admission to SFL1. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/obligatory-rangers-post-of-the-day/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 From a questionably reliable source Mr Green has 2 'silent partners' Craig Whyte, and Ticketus If true.. This wee rumour seems to be gaining a bit of momentum now. Makes you wonder. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 By my calculations, today's news from Annan Athletic means it's now impossible for Sevco FC to get the required 15 votes to secure admission to SFL1. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/obligatory-rangers-post-of-the-day/ Have I missed something? I thought the SFL teams were voting on whether or not the SFL could accommodate Sevco and if they were accepted then the SFL board would drop them straight into division 1 regardless of the opinions of the clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 From a questionably reliable source Mr Green has 2 'silent partners' Craig Whyte, and Ticketus If true.. It would explain why ticketus disappeared quietly and where MR Green got money and the assets very easily. It's very hard to not believe Whyte, Green and Duff and Phelps aren't all in this together. We already have decent proof Whyte and Duff and Phelps are in cahoots. Duff and Phelps didn't want to do business with the blue knights, even after they reached the quantum set by the dynamic duo. I do love a good conspiracy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Have I missed something? I thought the SFL teams were voting on whether or not the SFL could accommodate Sevco and if they were accepted then the SFL board would drop them straight into division 1 regardless of the opinions of the clubs. From what I understand, each resolution is to be voted on separately. As long as (ii) doesn't pass, there should be no way for Sevco Scotland Ltd to be allowed to operate outside the rules of the game as they apply to all other teams/companies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Have I missed something? I thought the SFL teams were voting on whether or not the SFL could accommodate Sevco and if they were accepted then the SFL board would drop them straight into division 1 regardless of the opinions of the clubs. Depends on your interpretation of the SFL email. At present, it seems as though the clubs can accept resolution (i), admitting Sevco into the league, but can reject resolution (ii), which permits the Board to parachute them into Division 1. My personal view is that the clubs will overwhelmingly reject resolution (ii) unless heavily amended. However, I also think that many clubs are so angry about the whole affair that if resolution (ii) ISN'T amended, they might just reject resolution (i) as well, throwing Sevco FC out of senior Scottish football entirely. Edited July 9, 2012 by Wings Over Scotland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) Have I missed something? I thought the SFL teams were voting on whether or not the SFL could accommodate Sevco and if they were accepted then the SFL board would drop them straight into division 1 regardless of the opinions of the clubs. That's exactly why the only real route forwards for those against Division 1 entry is to vote "No" to Sevco admission to the SFL entirely on Friday, and instead to state that Sevco should apply for any vacancy as and when it arises (in Div 3) along with anyone else who wishes to apply............in other words, that they shouldn't be parachuted into 3rd either but should follow the established application process. The fit-up on Friday is a parachute whether that parachute is to Div 1 OR Div 3 remember! Edited July 9, 2012 by Claymores 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 From what I understand, each resolution is to be voted on separately. As long as (ii) doesn't pass, there should be no way for Sevco Scotland Ltd to be allowed to operate outside the rules of the game as they apply to all other teams/companies. Depends on your interpretation of the SFL email. At present, it seems as though the clubs can accept resolution (i), admitting Sevco into the league, but can reject resolution (ii), which permits the Board to parachute them into Division 1. My personal view is that the clubs will overwhelmingly reject resolution (ii) unless heavily amended. However, I also think that many clubs are so angry about the whole affair that if resolution (ii) ISN'T amended, they might just reject resolution (i) as well, throwing Sevco FC out of senior Scottish football entirely. Someone else posted earlier that there was only one vote on the whole resolution, not 3 votes on the individual elements Anyone know, for certain, which is right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Someone else posted earlier that there was only one vote on the whole resolution, not 3 votes on the individual elements Anyone know, for certain, which is right? Think we need HJ, he did say that the questions can be asked in any order, so I'd assume you vote on each part separately. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Someone else posted earlier that there was only one vote on the whole resolution, not 3 votes on the individual elements Anyone know, for certain, which is right? I don't think there's such a thing as "for certain". Nobody knows the current plan, and whatever it is the clubs could change it at the meeting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) I don't think there's such a thing as "for certain". Nobody knows the current plan, and whatever it is the clubs could change it at the meeting. It's a bloody disgrace that large organisations can't provide rules that a horse and carriage couldn't be driven through. Edited July 9, 2012 by ayrmad 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.