ayrmad Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Thomson isn't in the least interested in the future of Scottish football. He comes across as being surprised and intrigued by the levels of corruption, fraud and incompetence to be found in this particular story, but as soon as this next part is settled he'll toddle off to the relative calm of Damascus, Baghdad or Kabul. I think his boss probably feels he has devoted way too much time to this story and needs him back doing a proper job. Nah, he himself said that the number of followers increased dramatically after he got involved in this shit, social media doesn't throw away followers anymore than a football team deliberately throws away it's fans. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only A Game ! Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 1341962189[/url]' post='6417728']Nah, he himself said that the number of followers increased dramatically after he got involved in this shit, social media doesn't throw away followers anymore than a football team deliberately throws away it's fans. True. He might continue to take a personal interest but C4 news won't be taking the story much further than the start of the season I wouldn't have thought so he loses quite a bit of his platform there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Beyond the short-term fallout, I don't see him keeping up the sort of dedicated tempo he has, anyway. There's a difference between reporting on active ongoings (they've been happening on an almost daily basis since this began) and trying to ignite passive matters (like some fans wanting certain things done or certain people fired). Back in March everyone expected him to go rabidly after Ogilvie, for example, but after picking-up on him having an EBT he's left it. Internal personnel wrangles are perhaps rather smallfry anyway considering his usual activities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Anybody who owns shares or a share in Rangers Football Club is not to be trusted. We're gonna need a bigger boat (vote)! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThirdrockfromtheSon Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Seems to me that matters have yet to run their course so that seems premature to expect of an SPL Club's Association - seems to me Friday looks far from a defeat for the diddys as yet, with most people seeing through the empty threats and only two sheister Clubs and their fans running in fear of SPL2 which has no chance of happening. I can't get over your tirade against others in here. If I was a Dumbarton or Stenhousemuir fan this week I'd be hiding my head in shame of my Club's position. No, they shouldn't. I have expressed my anger and disappointment on here and in Div 1 boards over what 50-odd fools bought into on Saturday at the Rock. I have also expressed similar but more vociferous commentary towards the Club this week, and have made my anger and disgust very clear to the BoDs. You can say what you like about them - their pre-planned sales pitch on Saturday was misleading, as my like-minded colleague on here will probably agree. We shouldn't hide or hang our heads in shame. We should be loud and clear in telling our Club that they have got it very, very wrong. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 No, they shouldn't. I have expressed my anger and disappointment on here and in Div 1 boards over what 50-odd fools bought into on Saturday at the Rock. I have also expressed similar but more vociferous commentary towards the Club this week, and have made my anger and disgust very clear to the BoDs. You can say what you like about them - their pre-planned sales pitch on Saturday was misleading, as my like-minded colleague on here will probably agree. We shouldn't hide or hang our heads in shame. We should be loud and clear in telling our Club that they have got it very, very wrong. Fixed that for you 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4422381/The-true-cost-of-Rangers-relegation.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4422507/Fixtures-mayhem-seems-a-cert-now.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTJ Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4422507/Fixtures-mayhem-seems-a-cert-now.html Or alternatively one of them plays on a Sunday, a simple fix to the problem. The papers must be really desperate printing utter shite like that, even in comparison to what they usually print. Surprised the story wasn't along the lines of "EX OLD FIRM STAR WARNS OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL CRISIS" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capt_oats Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.thescotti. ..a-cert-now.html Actual LOL 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4422381/The-true-cost-of-Rangers-relegation.html Iain King = Succulent, I assume ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 SFL3 seems like a sensible option based on the fixture list stuff. Problem solved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only A Game ! Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 1341963591[/url]' post='6417763']http://www.thescotti...relegation.html Jaw dropping . Absolutely Jaw dropping. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2011 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) No, they shouldn't. I have expressed my anger and disappointment on here and in Div 1 boards over what 50-odd fools bought into on Saturday at the Rock. I have also expressed similar but more vociferous commentary towards the Club this week, and have made my anger and disgust very clear to the BoDs. You can say what you like about them - their pre-planned sales pitch on Saturday was misleading, as my like-minded colleague on here will probably agree. We shouldn't hide or hang our heads in shame. We should be loud and clear in telling our Club that they have got it very, very wrong. I feel sorry for the decent Dumbarton supporters in this, but next season your club will not receive a penny from myself and numerous other potential visiting fans If however they stood up for fairness then I would happily part with my cash twice as Dumbarton is closer to me than Greenock Edited July 10, 2012 by xj2011 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.thescotti. ..relegation.html Must be true. The Sun said so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 http://www.thescotti...a-cert-now.html What nonsense from The Sun !! Firstly, it's looking massively unlikely Rangers will be in SFL1. Secondly, what clashes they are can be easily accomodated, by moving games to Sundays. This may happen anyway due to TV coverage / Europa League games, but otherwise teams can take turn-about moving to Sunday as previously. But for example of the first 3 clashes 2 include Dundee Utd v Aberdeen and Dundee Utd v Celtic. Both would be likely Sunday TV picks. Thirdly, are Dundee definetely going up? Fact that Rangers into SFL1 causes 3 clashes v 7 is yet another reason why the "compromise" shouldn't be considered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) Must be true. The Sun said so. Even their headline is a lie !! Edited July 11, 2012 by Ned Nederlander 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MTJ Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I have to say this article by the Sun has sent shivers down my spine. Couple with the stark warnings from Old Firm greats such as Alex Rae and Charlie Miller, I fear our game is dead. RIP Scottish Football bro. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyle Lanley Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/332109 Craig Beattie, Ben Gordon and Derek Riordan are other names being considered. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Clyde's new statement regarding the proposals. Tremendous reading: The board of Clyde Football Club met last night to consider how it might approach the resolutions (see below) to be voted on at the SFL meeting on Friday 13th July. This update is to inform our owners and supporters and hopefully explain some of the complexities that face the club when carefully and objectively considering how we might vote. We hope that by being as clear as possible about the difficulties surrounding this situation that the people able to support the process act swiftly to do so. The overwhelming reality is that we are being asked to make one of the most important decisions for Scottish Football in a vacuum devoid of factual information, that vacuum having been filled with unhelpful rhetoric and scaremongering by the chief executives of the SFA and SPL. We therefore looked at what we were being asked to vote on, how it fitted with the principles of the sport, and what information we might need to inform a logical decision in context of the current reality. It was clear that the resolutions marked a clear departure from all previous process and custom and practice when considering admitting a team to the SFL, albeit operating within the rules of the SFL. It was in that context which we considered the resolutions. In reality, the customary principles of sport were not at the forefront of the resolutions.We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement. To assist the SFL clubs to take decisions in the right manner then the external threat should be removed by the SPL clubs, confirming to the SFL that they have not and will not instruct the SPL to breach the Settlement Agreement.Consideration was then given to Resolution 1 which we concluded required to be reworded to be explicit that entry was to SFL3. The reason for this is that once entered to the SFL in the manner proposed under Resolution 1, we understand that it is within the power of the Board of the SFL to place a club into any league of their choosing. We believe that, due to the intolerable pressure placed on the SFL board to date by external parties, this resolution should be explicit to avoid the Board coming under pressure from either the SFA or SPL in the event that Resolution 2 is rejected. It is also our opinion that Resolution 1 being explicit sits more appropriately with Resolution 2 which in itself is explicit about where any club might play.In terms of Resolution 1, whether reworded or not, it seemed inconceivable to the Board of Clyde that absolutely no information whatsoever has been provided to support the resolution. This is clearly a matter of haste and again driven by an external agenda, perhaps because Sevco have not lodged an application to join the SFL then they have not submitted any information. Whilst we have accepted that this is being treated as a special case and we are willing to run with this, it simply was not possible to conclude that we could make any decision at this time. The matter is made worse because of the extent of uncertainty which hangs over Sevco. There is no need to prepare an exhaustive list of the issues as they are well publicised, however the extent of outstanding sanctions that may or may not be levied against a club which has yet to obtain SFA membership, together with the increasing number of possible commercial and legal challenges to the transactions to date simply presents a significant risk to the ability of the club to fulfil its fixtures in any league. Given that some of these matters are in the hands of the governing bodies it seems inexplicable that they are left hanging. We are clear that for the good of the game that we would want a swift and positive conclusion that would see Rangers Football Club taking part in the game again and we would wish to be able to support a Resolution that saw them entered to SFL3. However, until we receive enough information to inform such a decision then we are being pushed into a corner which would actually leave any club making a logical decision arrive at the conclusion that Resolution 1 should not be supported. The SFA could assist the process by transferring the SFA membership to Sevco prior to the Friday meeting if they have satisfied themselves of fit and proper tests and have carried out their own diligence on the viability of the club and the various legal challenges.Resolution 2 suffers from the same issues as Resolution 1, in that no information of any sort about Sevco, not even whether it will obtain SFA membership, leaves no possibility of making a decision about entry to the SFL based on facts or logic. Clearly it is incumbent on all the governing bodies to make available all factual information they have available if they truly want this process to have any chance of being recovered from the current chaos. At the very least the business plan for Sevco and any other information that led the SPL clubs to arrive at a decision should be made available to the SFL clubs, and not with inappropriately short notice, although that point has as good as passed. Resolution 2 was where the challenge to sporting integrity arose. It was impossible to engage with this concept without continually bearing in mind that the SFA had already undermined the prospects for any integrity to be maintained by making it clear that failure to deal with the admission of a newco to SFL3 would be a dereliction of duty. In effect posting notice that no matter what decision is taken by the SFL clubs to administer their league, the SFA would not tolerate anything other than SFL 1, an equivalent point having been made by Neil Doncaster on behalf of the SPL clubs. The stated position of the SFA and SPL chief executives means that, whilst this club can have faith in David Longmuir to do all in his power to deliver a new combined structure that meets the objectives of Resolution 2, we have no faith in the parties that the new arrangements would be negotiated with. Their behaviour to date is evidence enough for us. We should not be disingenuous on our own position in terms of the question of trading sporting integrity for transformational change to the way the game is governed that is posed by Resolution 2. We have said previously that there would be no winners and that compromise would be required at some point. With this in mind, had we worked through this process and seen positive collaborative behaviour from the leaders of the SFA and SPL and we were challenged with backing Resolution 2 in exchange for revolutionary change that would truly benefit the game as a whole, then we would have engaged with that. As it stands, we have no information on the proposals other than that distributed in advance of the meeting last week and no confidence in the parties that will control the process outside of the SFL. As such we would vote no to Resolution 2.Resolution 3, as many have pointed out this resolution seems presumptuous as no invitation has been issued from the SPL to either club. Again, this arises because of the external pressures, the haste and the failure of other bodies to complete their own processes. As things stand, whilst Sevco/Newco was not voted into the SPL, it seems that the SPL still has 12 members based on the reported voting at the SPL meeting last week, albeit one of whom is in liquidation. It seems to make more sense that the SPL complete their processes and make the appropriate invitation for a club to join the SPL. We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.In summary, the complete absence of information on Sevco Scotland Ltd renders it impossible to vote with any logic in favour of any of the Resolutions. The default in these circumstances would unfortunately be to vote against. We hope and trust that this unacceptable situation will be resolved swiftly and will allow Clyde Football Club to support Resolution 1 from an informed position and will see Rangers Football Club playing in SFL3. We see Resolution 2 as a matter of trust and it would take a change of personnel and attitude for us to be confident that David Longmuir would be entering discussions with a group of people committed to a collaborative process in a spirit of genuine partnership.In the current circumstances our only decision could be to vote against Resolution 2. Subject to a satisfactory outcome on Resolution 1 we would support Resolution 3.The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:- (i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13. (ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13. (iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting. This post has been edited by Islay: Today, 20:06 Basically they wiped their arse with the proposal document in some style and fired it round the other clubs to smell it. Fantastic...Mon the clyde !! 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.