AyrshireTon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There was a time when I wanted three teams in Scotland to lose - St Mirren, Rangers and Celtic in that order. Now St Mirren don't matter in that sense to me any more and I would actively support them against the old firm and even grudgingly admire them doing well. Does that make me a bad person? No - I've probably felt that way for longer than you. In fact, if I were to rack up the SPL teams in order of "want them to get gubbed by the other teams" St. Mirren would be comfortably mid-table. In fairness though, you can't say you weren't pishing yourself watching them lose to nine men in the League Cup final. Car radio - that ok? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 So we know that the proposal in its current guise hasn't got a chance of parachuting Ragers into Div One. My question is what happens on Friday? Is it the case that the horse trading happens at the meeting following a "No" vote, or is it the case that Ragers will be placed in either of the divisions at that point? Clearly time is marching on re: season start. They can't in my view, afford to pend a decision for another week or so. I would agree. Ideally it'll be settled on Friday (although personally I rankle somewhat at SFL3's vacancy not going to a contest), but failing that, they should call another EGM for Wednesday 18th July to conclude things. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DomDom Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 If I had a table for teams I like to see win in the SPL, St. Mirren would top it. All sense of rivalry is gone for me and has been replaced by the opposite feeling of fondness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Are there actually any chairmen/directors of SFL clubs/SFA presidents who don't have shares in Rangers FC (IA)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Kelty Hearts v Rangers - Stefan Winiarski Testimonial 10% of the gate goes to the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund. Will this be their only pre-season friendly? At Hawick Royal Albert on 21st. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 You make a few good points there. I appreciate the feeling of Rangers fans is that they have been punished enough and what else could be done to them. The fact that they will not be involved in a title race for the short to medium term is a huge punishment to the real, honest, footballing Rangers fans. The fact that their team was able to challenge for titles in the first place was purely due to the fact that they defrauded the Exchequer and used that money as working capital to buy and pay players they otherwise would not have had access to. A massive advantage gained by cheating and a massive obstacle to all clubs operating legally and within their means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 They are playing Kelty Hearts soon, guess they will be on google checking out the B&B's around there Must be some spare tents kicking around Balado; only about 10 miles from Kelty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Are there actually any chairmen/directors of SFL clubs/SFA presidents who don't have shares in Rangers FC (IA)? There was something posted on KDS to the fact that only ONE member of the Airdrie board was NOT a shareholder of Spivco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 alex thomson@alextomoBerwick voting D1- their director Brian Porteous has 516 "Rangers" shares. Pure coincidence I'm sure. Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There was something posted on KDS to the fact that only ONE member of the Airdrie board was NOT a shareholder of Spivco. Indeed. The only board member of Airdrie Utd who is not a shareholder in Rangers FC (IA) is Ian McMillan, who is a former player for Rangers FC (IA). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about Sevco? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 In fairness though, you can't say you weren't pishing yourself watching them lose to nine men in the League Cup final. And here endeth the diddy love-in 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I'd clearly never wear it, but I'll be dammed if Spartans don't have a badge that screams "awesome". Agreed, I've long thought it's a very good piece of graphic design. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wokcomble Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 There was something posted on KDS to the fact that only ONE member of the Airdrie board was NOT a shareholder of Spivco. Yes, posted about 10 pages back. So thats Airdrie and Berwick with a coflict of interests then ? Posted somewhere that Airdrie are abstaining - surely same must apply to Berwick ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 alex thomson@alextomoBerwick voting D1- their director Brian Porteous has 516 "Rangers" shares. Pure coincidence I'm sure. Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about Indeed. Haven't a number of clubs already declared a potential conflict of interest and acknowledged that they will not vote accordingly? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymores Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 alex thomson@alextomoBerwick voting D1- their director Brian Porteous has 516 "Rangers" shares. Pure coincidence I'm sure. Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about Believe you're allowed to be a small shareholder - just not hold a more significant stake. BUT in any case, Rangers are being liquidated (so their shares are already worthless) - the vote is on the entry of Sevco Scotland Ltd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Indeed. Haven't a number of clubs already declared a potential conflict of interest and acknowledged that they will not vote accordingly? Calls into question 'rangers' being allowed to vote at the SPL meeting on newco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 alex thomson@alextomoBerwick voting D1- their director Brian Porteous has 516 "Rangers" shares. Pure coincidence I'm sure. Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about Because there's some piece of sophistry within the SFA rules saying that at long as the shareholding is not "substantial", then it's OK. Feckin' stinks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Lol big time at big hoose! Would have read much better as 'hame' though imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Why is this allowed? How can you get a vote when you have shares in the club you are voting about In fairness, the shares are in the Oldco. There's no direct financial benefit for shareholders here. That said, the reason is fairly straightforward: the SFA is slightly more corrupt than the average Central American CIA puppet state. Rather than banning chairmen from owning shares in other clubs, we allow them to own up to a 5% stake. Because that's totally normal! 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.