WeeHectorPar Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 McLeish seems to me to be coming across quite well here. I'm feeling out of my depth here. Not a single Rangers apologist in sight. What the hell is happening to the Scottixh media? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I walked past a garden in Brigton and there were 4 wee Rangers tops hanging upside down to dry in the back garden....wi' 4 wee faces lookin out the windaes Would imagine a few nearby parked cars will feel the backlash soon.... mmmmm the house along the road from me had rangers flags flying from the windaes.......deffo social unrest in dundee now 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBairn Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 I'm feeling out of my depth here. Not a single Rangers apologist in sight. What the hell is happening to the Scottixh media? Gordon Smitty and Archie MacHairpiece are scheming their comeback for Monday's nuclear SPL2 announcement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 McLeish seems to me to be coming across quite well here. He knows his audience, I suspect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Which McLeish - Henry or Alex? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Which McLeish - Henry or Alex? Henry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old school Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 St Mirren and Ict a disgrace to the game:-( 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Henry. Who was plastered over the papers up until yesterday saying fans had to "balance" integrity with finance, let the "professionals" do their job, and appreciate that SFL1 was the way forward? Is this another turbo-charged backtrack, perchance? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coqofthenorth Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Who was plastered over the papers up until yesterday saying fans had to "balance" integrity with finance, let the "professionals" do their job, and appreciate that SFL1 was the way forward? Is this another turbo-charged backtrack, perchance? Yup. Call me cynical, but that's politicians for you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 By my reckoning QOS, Hamilton are confirmed Yes votes. Forfar are a good bet for third after reading their lame fence sitting statement yesterday. Add to that Partick and Falkirk then I think we have our 5 quislings. Partick statement on their site, they voted No. I think Falkirk too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlesgreen Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Struggling to get otb on my I phone. Any working link please 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Can anyone in the Glasgow area tell us what evidence of social unrest or armageddon arose yesterday? Not been reported much down here. Don't know about social unrest but there's plenty of unrest at the social a s the number of **** claiming disability due to stress has skyrocketed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 So East Stirling, Partick Thistle, Albion Rovers, Brechin, Stenny and Dumbarton all voted no. Queen of the South and Hamilton have confirmed as yes votes. Who does that actually leave unconfirmed? Montrose, Falkirk, Forfar and Queen's Park? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Where is this St Mirren/Gilmour statement that people are referring too. Link or details please. Henry McLeish is a two faced havering twat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Partick statement on their site, they voted No. I think Falkirk too. So there are some yes's lurking among the no's? I wonder who.......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 OTB Link 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Who was plastered over the papers up until yesterday saying fans had to "balance" integrity with finance, let the "professionals" do their job, and appreciate that SFL1 was the way forward? Is this another turbo-charged backtrack, perchance? Playing to his audience, as I've suggested. Edited July 14, 2012 by Drooper 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broccoli Dog Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Where is this St Mirren/Gilmour statement that people are referring too. Link or details please. Henry McLeish is a two faced havering twat. Article isn't online yet, quote is.. "I hope the SFL clubs realise the damage they have done to Scottish Football." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 Here's the Shire statement... decent stuff, quite open and concise. The board of East Stirlingshire Football Club, having deliberated long and hard, voted against allowing Rangers to be admitted to the Scottish Football League First Division at Friday’s Special General Meeting of the league at Hampden Park. We are acutely aware that the club had made no official statement on this situation prior to the vote taking place. Now that the issue has been resolved the board feels the time is right to offer an explanation to our own supporters. Our primary consideration was the viewpoint expressed to us by the club’s loyal followers. East Stirlingshire is a club whose biggest single shareholder is the supporters trust, making it effectively fan-owned and fan-run. It would be impossible under those circumstances not to consider their views as paramount. And the truth is that where those opinions were expressed there was a majority against allowing Rangers to compete in the First Division. There also seemed to us to be a wider consensus among Scottish football supporters that this should not happen. Those views were part of our consideration too. Secondly, the board felt the draft Head of Terms distributed on Wednesday evening did not merit our support. The new voting structure for a merged league, we felt, would mean a loss of influence for our club. The measures designed to bring about league reconstruction seemed at best nebulous with an idea for a pyramid structure, something which might have direct bearing on our league status, very similar to one which SFL clubs rejected in April. However, the board has always supported a proper pyramid system which encompasses all senior, junior and amateur clubs in Scotland and believes in positive change to the way the leagues are organised. But it does not support quick fixes. The idea that we might vote in favour of this proposal partly on the basis of a share of a £1 million payment for TV rights would have made economic sense, but in a debate which has been dominated by moral and sporting arguments we can easily guess the wrath we as a board would have faced from our own supporters for going down that route. Thirdly, last year East Stirlingshire Football Club was presented with a threat to its own existence from debts to HMRC. Debts which the new board, which has only been in place for a year, had to make real sacrifices and unpalatable decisions to pay, otherwise HMRC would have wound us up. We endured a heavy price for those decisions, both on and off the pitch, but we did so to protect the continued existence of the club while at the same time ensuring all our creditors were paid in full. This had a real impact on our deliberations in this matter and rightly so. We have noted and taken on board the warnings made by Mr Regan and Mr Doncaster of the financial implications of not allowing Rangers into the First Division. Were these to become a reality then there is no doubt that life would become a real financial struggle and that the future of the club itself would not be certain. Nevertheless, our club is familiar with such struggles and would take whatever steps are necessary to try our best to mitigate against this, no matter how this might influence performances on the pitch. None of us wish these gloomy predictions to come true. That said, we believe Scottish football has reached the place it currently finds itself in as the result of over-ambition and bad planning. To predicate the financial health of the top levels of Scottish football on the televising of four Rangers Celtic matches a season was never wise when such a plan was agreed and looks even less wise now. The misguided belief that Scotland could become a mini-version of England by using the power and wealth of television to fund the game has at last been exposed. It is time to reduce the dependency on TV money, downsize our clubs and, most importantly, call a halt to rampant wage inflation where players are concerned, not just in the SPL but in the SFL too. It is time for clubs to form an even stronger alliance with local business and their local communities to provide the greater part of their income through sponsorship and at the turnstiles. If that means we all have less money to spend as clubs without a lucrative TV deal, then so be it. Supporters of our own club and fans of others have told us that what they wanted was the principle of fair play upheld in this case. We, and others, have listened and tried to deliver that. Now it is up to everyone to work together to take advantage of that groundswell by generating higher attendances at matches in a Scottish football landscape that has been altered by today’s vote. East Stirlingshire Football Club feels no ill-will towards Rangers FC in all of this. We wish them all the best and, furthermore, hope that the Rangers Supporters Trust is successful in securing a major stake in the company which now owns the club, for we believe fan-owned clubs is the right way to go. Their supporters have suffered and from what we have been able to observe seem to accept the culpability of those in positions of responsibility within the organisation. We hope everyone has learned an important lesson for Scottish football as a whole; that hubris is normally followed by nemesis and instead of, in the first instance, trying to reach for the stars clubs should strive to ensure no more than the continued existence of important and valued institutions within their own communities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boghead ranter Posted July 14, 2012 Share Posted July 14, 2012 So East Stirling, Partick Thistle, Albion Rovers, Brechin, Stenny and Dumbarton all voted no. Queen of the South and Hamilton have confirmed as yes votes. Who does that actually leave unconfirmed? Montrose, Falkirk, Forfar and Queen's Park? depends if you're looking at who said they would say no BEFORE the vote, or those who have said they said no AFTER the vote. 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.