wunfellaff Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 GIOVANNI DI STEFANO (@DEVILSADVOKAT)09/07/2012 20:44 In 30 years fighting injustice all over the world I have yet to see more powerful forces against those that are against Rangers football :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sons superhero Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 None needed. Someone said earlier that I should call you a tit for your blooper. I refused. Wouldn't call one of our fans a tit. Mind you, we both support a "diddy" club A pair of "diddies" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeedsSpider Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) As far as I know, it's written into the constitution of the club that they don't pay any players wages, only expenses: Queen's Park - history "Tonight at half past eight o'clock a number of gentlemen met at No. 3 Eglinton Terrace for the purpose of forming a football club". These words, taken from the minutes of a meeting held on July 9th 1867, heralded not only the birth of Queens Park F.C., but also the birth of Scottish Football itself. The game had been played in public schools with their own versions of the code but it was Queens Park who led the way in the establishment of Association Football rules in Scotland. They were considered the masters of the game in the early days and did not concede a single goal for the first eight years of its existence. The club is steeped in tradition and history. At its outset it was decided that no player should ever receive a wage playing for Queens Park. To this day the rule holds and Queens Park's amateur status makes it quite unique in Scottish senior football. The club also resisted the Scottish Football League in its early days, fearing the domination of the League would kill off smaller clubs. They even played in the English FA Cup, finishing runners-up to Blackburn Rovers in 1884 and 1885. In 1900 they finally joined the Scottish League for fear of falling behind. Although it is an amateur club now playing in the lower divisions of the Scottish Football League, Queen's Park still play at the magnificent 52,500 capacity Hampden Park. The club's motto is ludere causa ludendi "the game, for the game's sake." 145 years old TODAY Edited July 9, 2012 by LeedsSpider 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRS LEFT PEG Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Whats all this shite about Sfl being under pressure to make a decision on zombies future ? Jeez, the money I would pay for this right ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeedsSpider Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Why would gate money make a difference to Queens Park? Oh! I'm sure we could use the money for something useful and it wouldn't be wasted at all 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GordieBoy80 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 In what capacity? Not been told exactly what, trying to get more details. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McQueen Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Is there any argument for Rangers not being in Div 3 that aren't financial? I'd love to hear some! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdTheDuck Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) That's a load of nonsense. I can't remember what the deals were before Sky were beaten by Setanta but Setanta's first deal was £13.5M p/a; then £25M p/a (deal that never happened); then Sky-ESPN £13M p/a; then Sky-ESPN £16M p/a (now unlikely to happen). Sky paid £40M over 4 years and when that deal was running down was when the SP tried to play hardball with Sky when they offered a mere £45M to renew for another 4 years - Sky laughed them out of town and walked away and the SPL ended up with disastrous £15M over 2 years from the Beeb. Edited July 9, 2012 by EdTheDuck 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only A Game ! Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) No I don't think that's OK. I think the constant threat of boycotts is pretty pathetic and is becoming ineffective. Clubs have to weigh up.the pros and cons of their own situation and should be respected for that You have to distinguish between 'boycotts' and simply walking away because youve had enough. A boycott is a protest from people who still care. Walking away is what people who no longer care do. I dont think there will be any concerted boycott by significant numbers of fans of one club, against another club, apart from possibly a section of the Celtic support against Kilmarnock. If Rangers, after all they have been exposed as doing in the last 15 years, get a lifeline because of who they are, a lifeline that no other club has ever had, then lots of fans of clubs across the country will simply walk away. Thats not a boycott, thats a loss of interest and a loss of customer base which, in all likely-hood, would take a generation to recover from, if ever. What the SFL clubs have to consider his week is the same as the the SPL clubs had to consider two weeks ago and its two simple questions. 1. What do we really believe ALL the consequences, benefits and drawbacks are to our club of admitting Newco to the 1st Division. 2. What do we really believe ALL the consequences, benefits and drawbacks are to our club of NOT admitting Newco to the 1st Division. If a club with its own interests at heart believes they can survive without Newco in the 1st Division, they should vote NO if a club with its own interests at heart believes they will go under without Newco in the 1st Division they should vote YES If a club in the SFL seriously thinks they should cast a vote, contrary to their own interests AND contrary to their fans wishes but for the greater good of Scottish football in the eyes of that club, then they have to be prepared and willing to accept whatever backlash comes from their own fans. Edited July 9, 2012 by Only A Game ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulmcc12 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 In which I take a closer look at the resolution before the meeting on Friday. It looks as if the SFL members are being sold a pig in a poke, except they have not even been shown the poke, never mind the pig! A cynic would say that the resolution is designed for one purpose only – to allow “Rangers FC” into SFL1. However, even if passed, it seems to leave loose ends flapping about, as well as an almost impossible task for the three ruling bodies to reach agreement – impossible due to the time available and also the small matter of the rules and constitutions of the relevant bodies! http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/sfl-meeting-part-3-what-are-the-members-voting-on/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Is there any argument for Rangers not being in Div 3 that aren't financial? I'd love to hear some! the moral arguement I suppose, ie they should not be in Div 3 'cos they should be deid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huistrinho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Stolen from Reddit... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 9, 2012 Author Share Posted July 9, 2012 Stolen from Reddit... Good job by his two mates to place themselves in the perfect position to hide the Irn Bru patches on the sleeves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huistrinho Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 http://scotslawthoug...bers-voting-on/ "as soon as the SFL Board is satisfied, at that point the white smoke goes up, and “Rangers FC” is admitted to SFL1." Interesting choice of metaphor 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeep Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Not sure if this has been covered in last few pages so apologies if it has. I think Motherwell's denial is important for what it doesn't say I can confirm no one from Motherwell Football Club had any input into the production of the document you linked and in fact had not seen it prior it to it being distributed. Furthermore, no one from the club has taken part in any discussion with anyone from the Scottish Football League. So they had no input to the production They had not seen it before it was distributed They have not discussed with the SFL It doesn't say we are against this document. It doesn't say we didn't know about it before the SPL vote. It doesn't say we did not discuss this with other members of the SPL. I have no doubt the SPL chairmen knew about this before their vote. John Brown appears to have known I have no doubt they congratulated the Cockwomble and Regan on their sleekitness Can't prove it but as far as I am aware not one SPL Chairman has disowned it or Doncaster since it's release and he is employed by them. Why 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wokcomble Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I only saw this when I went back to it there Maybe someone was on the case early doors. Christ I think everyone will be having kittens 'till Friday, have a few days off, then start all over again 'til the next deadline Edit for:it seemed to refer to something in The Sun but I can't see shoite on their site, and I don't buy the rag. I'm a bit lost with the post - how many present directors of Airdrie have rangers shares ? obliged 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WILLIEA Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Thing that really sticks in the craw is that we've all known for years that certain clubs get favourable treatment and decisions their way. It's not new, but to have it so blatantly thrown in your face is what makes it so hard to take. I think that is why so many are talking of " walking away " For me I would not just be boycotting Queens, Stenny, etc it would be the whole rotten corrupt lot of them. SFA, SPL, SFA. It just wouldn't be worth the hassle any more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
realmadrid Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I've heard that Geoff Brown's involved in some way in the proposals. Are you sure it's Geoff Brown and not his son Steve. Geoff stepped down as Chairman last year on the day that Steve Lomas took over and while he still owns most of the shares in Saints he is not a director any more so I would not expect him to be involved in this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm a consumer, I won't consume shite like this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) I'm a bit lost with the post - how many present directors of Airdrie have rangers shares ? obliged The Board is Jim Ballantyne(chairman), his mum Rose (director), sister Anne Marie (director) , all ex shareholders in oldcorpse, plus Honorory Pres ex-Rangers Ian McMillan. http://airdriefc.com/board.html Edit 'cos I'm a fud and got Jim and his dad John mixed up.... Edited July 9, 2012 by wunfellaff 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.