wunfellaff Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Thekiltcompany :lol: http://www.thekiltcompany.com/kilt_hire.asp We have over 40 tartans available:Hunting McGregor Modern Black Watch Red Hackle Scottish National Scottish National Black Douglas Modern Flower of Scotland Spirit of Scotland Scotland Forever Hunting Stwart Modern Stewart Black Modern Stuart of Bute Monarch of the Glen Saltire Modern Braveheart Earl of St Andrews Holyrood Isle of Skye Black Isle McRae Ancient Hunting Ramsay Blue Ramsay Red Highland Granite Hebridean Granite Pride of Perth Pride of Loch Leven Pride of Kinross PARS Grey PARS Dress St Johnstone Great Scot Buchanan Modern Spirit of East Kilbride Spirit of Dundee Pride of the Tay Pride of Fife Former Rangers Celtic Robertson Hunting Ancient Gunn Modern Campbell Ancient Gordon Dress McKenzie Modern Royal Stewart Scottish Thistle Leslie Ancient Hunting Stewart Highland 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowden0 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 the worst administration ever? you decide BBC Sportsound @bbcsportsound Gers 'lost £4m' in administration: Rangers lost almost £4m from the time it was placed in administration until t... http://bbc.in/NLgq7F Expand Reply Retweet Favorite 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 So, Friday morning....... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only A Game ! Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 We have no financial benefit playing newco, dundee and dunfermline will both bring as many fans. If you add additional stewarding and policing we would be worse off. Unless you count the fictional tv money that doesn't exist. Sorry but that just cant be right ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I see the 'ever-objective' Reporting Scotland seem to be running with the "shiny 16 team top division on the way if you vote yes!!" line tonight. Unless another statement is due, what has been released by SFA/SPL/SFL doesn't make any mention nor guarantees of division size. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 the worst administration ever? you decide BBC Sportsound @bbcsportsound Gers 'lost £4m' in administration: Rangers lost almost £4m from the time it was placed in administration until t... http://bbc.in/NLgq7F Expand Reply Retweet Favorite near enough every club in the league would have lost money during that period. there is no season ticket income or central payments in the period feb -june. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sorry but that just cant be right ? Remember their ground only holds 2,000 less any segregation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veteran Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Eh ? They've just said they've been looking at reconstruction for the last TWO YEARS. There are 4 weeks or so till the start of the season. This shower have taken TWO WEEKS and still havent decided who is replacing Rangers in SPL1. There is precisely NO DANGER of an SPL 2 this season. Even if there was a possibility they could achieve it administratively, there is NO DANGER of getting a majority of the 42 club to vote in favour of it. An SPL2, under Doncaster's auspices ? NO CHANCE....and I mean NEVER. In addition the SFL have to agree to release clubs to form an SPL 2.Either that or the clubs involved have to give 2 years notice. Any attempt to form SPL2 without the agreement of the SFL will result no doubt in protracted litigation and intervention by FIFA/EUFA which could result in severe sanctions for any associations complicit in the matter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBairn Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Is it the SFA or SFL that allocate the European slots? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowden0 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 near enough every club in the league would have lost money during that period. there is no season ticket income or central payments in the period feb -june. I know but a few redundancies that are the norm in such cases ie Portsmouth might of helped 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MFC_East_Stand_Al Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 the worst administration ever? you decide BBC Sportsound @bbcsportsound Gers 'lost £4m' in administration: Rangers lost almost £4m from the time it was placed in administration until t... http://bbc.in/NLgq7F Expand Reply Retweet Favorite The sale of just 1 player would have covered that, or had they done what every other company in administration does slashed costs across the board including shedding staff. There are a couple of points in the Creditors statement that when taken in isolation seem a bit conflicting 5.2 The Joint Administrators are bound by statutory provisions to accept the offer which yields the highest return to creditors of the Company. Offer 1 – Party 1 5.4 A sale of the Company‟s business and assets for £25m. No CVA proposal required. Offer 2 – Party 2 5.5 Consideration of £5m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Offer 3 – Party 3 5.6 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 3 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. Ticketus would not claim as an unsecured creditor in the process. Offer 4 – Party 4 5.7 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 4 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. 5.8 Of the offers received at this point, analysis demonstrated that Offer 1 produced the highest return to creditors by a substantial margin. Yet they accepted Greens £5.5m ? Can someone please explain? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 If Sevco are not voted in to SFL1 then the SFA will refuse their registration for this season. They will not play this season and be placed straight in to the larger SPL next season. You heard it here first. You have no idea how many problems i see with that proposal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Anybody care to guess what the headlines will be in the Red Tops on Friday morning ? Countdown to Armageddon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huistrinho Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 (edited) I don't know much about the history up to 1920 but I do know that this is was a club which commercially and unashamedly exploited bigotry. I'm a fairly old chap (and went to school who's name does not begin with 'Saint') but its less than a generation ago that Rangers signed their first catholic. The club remained all its days focal point for disgusting bigots and I have no doubt whatsoever that Sevco/Newco will be the same. I think I've covered most of what you refer to in my earlier posts today, but I'll add a couple of comments. I don't claim that there wasn't a "signing policy", but there were a good 30 or so Catholics in the Rangers team (a couple signed directly from Celtic) before MoJo. That's a matter of record. The club has undeniably been a focal point for bigots, but this has visibly reduced in last 25 or so years I've been going to matches. Like I said, some people are morons. You continue to support them despite these connotations which in my eyes means your morals are dubious even if you are not sectarian yourself. It just means you are prepared to put up with it. I support the team - I despise the bigots. I hoped to see it change. If Sevco amounts to anything (I have my doubts), I'd hope to be part of the change if I decide to support them. As I said, it's not intrinsic to the club - just because you don't know much of the club's history before 1920, doesn't mean you get to ignore it in a debate. As for my morals, I have twice today discussed the conflict I feel - mark my morals as dubious if you wish. Rangers represent what is absolutely worst about Scottish society - bigotry, 'we ur ra peeple', glory hunters - you name it. If you can't see that, you are thick. If you can see it and don't walk away, that's worse!! You might call me thick, but bigotry isn't the product of Rangers, rather it, and other nasty characteristics such as racism and homophobia are the problems of society and will always find some way to manifest (I'll leave out glory-hunting, as any individual or team achieving success is affected by that problem). With Rangers dead, and if Sevco amounts to nothing the same people will pop up somewhere else with their bile. I hope none of them attach themselves to your club. We both agree that bigotry was exploited by former governors of the club for commercial gain but I repeat my view that it is not intrinsic to the club, and hasn't been part of the governance in the time I've been following football. I know not everyone respects my views, and plenty deal only in absolutes, and that's fine. I was asked some pages back to explain why I came to support Rangers and I did so. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with my explanation doesn't make my explanation untrue and I'll put it to bed here so we can get back to talking about the issues at hand. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue conversing. Edited July 11, 2012 by Huistrinho 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 That's sort of what I meant, actually. The field-of-play has altered again. Now club's are faced with what is effectively a deferral of the outcome - they're not being asked to vote Rangers into SFL1 in return for XYZ, but in return for a panel to go away and talk about reforms. (Unless we're all missing something). This makes it easier to oppose - "it guarantees nothing" - but also to support - "it may lead to comprehensive changes". You'd think only one of the more outspoken clubs, like Raith or Clyde, will be first to criticise. How does it make it easier to support when the SFA have done SFA over McLeish's report except blow a lot of hot air out of their arses and tell everyone it's Chanel No.5? All they've done is admit they aren't willing to do anything for the good of the game or any other club except their beloved Rangers - they want the status quo and their cushy number kept intact involving the minimal work and fuss to return. They've just signed their own career death warrents - if they think the rest of the SFL are going to keep them bankrolled in the manner to which they are accustomed in return for empty promises after this season's pantomime, they're in for a big wake up call tomorrow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Is it the SFA or SFL that allocate the European slots? SFA The sale of just 1 player would have covered that, or had they done what every other company in administration does slashed costs across the board including shedding staff. There are a couple of points in the Creditors statement that when taken in isolation seem a bit conflicting 5.2 The Joint Administrators are bound by statutory provisions to accept the offer which yields the highest return to creditors of the Company. Offer 1 – Party 1 5.4 A sale of the Company‟s business and assets for £25m. No CVA proposal required. Offer 2 – Party 2 5.5 Consideration of £5m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Offer 3 – Party 3 5.6 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 3 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. Ticketus would not claim as an unsecured creditor in the process. Offer 4 – Party 4 5.7 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 4 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. 5.8 Of the offers received at this point, analysis demonstrated that Offer 1 produced the highest return to creditors by a substantial margin. Yet they accepted Greens £5.5m ? Can someone please explain? Keep reading the document, its explained in there So now we have 14 for 13/14 and then 16 for 14/15. In other words, if Rangers cant manage to finish in the top 4 next season or possibly even top 5 if there are playoffs too, then we'll make sure theres another couple of promotion places for the season after next. Guess the sponsors wont wait three years, but they might be convinced to wait two if the setup is rigged enough The fact that this is being put through, simply, to propel Rangers back into the SPL as quickly as possible is absolutely abhorrent. The fact that the consequences of it not happening might be even worse, is frightening. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustOneCornetto Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 You have no idea how many problems i see with that proposal. Yeas there would be major problems if this panned out but I suggested something similar at the weekend only difference being that SFA would place Newco in SPL this season and immediately expel them for 1 season. 11 teams in SPL would mean a free team each week allowing Newco to play a friendly every week at Ibrox. Why are SPL waiting till Monday to vote on Dundee or Dunfermline, could all be a sham with above plan already worked out. Whatever transires it is bound to be corrupt! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The sale of just 1 player would have covered that, or had they done what every other company in administration does slashed costs across the board including shedding staff. There are a couple of points in the Creditors statement that when taken in isolation seem a bit conflicting 5.2 The Joint Administrators are bound by statutory provisions to accept the offer which yields the highest return to creditors of the Company. Offer 1 – Party 1 5.4 A sale of the Company‟s business and assets for £25m. No CVA proposal required. Offer 2 – Party 2 5.5 Consideration of £5m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Offer 3 – Party 3 5.6 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 3 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. Ticketus would not claim as an unsecured creditor in the process. Offer 4 – Party 4 5.7 Consideration of £10m to be introduced to the Company subject to a successful CVA proposal. Party 4 would obtain Company‟s shares directly. 5.8 Of the offers received at this point, analysis demonstrated that Offer 1 produced the highest return to creditors by a substantial margin. Yet they accepted Greens £5.5m ? Can someone please explain? The only people that can explain are Haudit and Daudit and I think it's very likely they will have to explain, not to amateurs like us but to people who will be able to analyse and determine the veracity of their explanation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebbes20silkcut Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Is it the SFA or SFL that allocate the European slots? UEFA request the SFA to nominate clubs to partake in European competition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coastspider Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Remember their ground only holds 2,000 less any segregation. 27apr 2002 just after the ground was opened All Ticket match against QP when they claimed 3rd Division championshipe attendence given as 1959, 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.