Pull My Strings Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I don't know what you've become, or what you were. You seem a reasonably guy/gal. I hate celtic and rangers and what they stand for. Both were founded for honourable reasons, and have mutated into what they are today. Both clubs and their attitudes embarrass me as a Scot living in a foreign land. They reflect badly upon our society. Anyway, how do you reckon either 1. rangers, or 2. Whatever Sevco end up becoming, have been punished accordingly? In case (1), the point deduction is an automatic sanction for entering admin. The 160K fine was around 1% of what the club stole in ONE YEAR. In case (2), the new team has been ushered into the SFL ahead of other teams who are arguably more deserving of a place. What is not arguable is that Sevco in no way fit the criteria for league membership, including not even being members of the SFA. Accordingly? I think not. They've been punished for the two misdemeanours for which they've thus far been held culpable: (i) going into administration and (ii) bringing the game into disrepute. The punishments for those two offences seem entirely proportionate to me (indeed, I was pleasantly surprised at the transfer embargo and am pleased that the SFA have stuck their guns and forced it through). As for the rest, those are either sins of the company (which is now being wound up) or sins of the team (double contracts etc.) which have yet to be addressed. So far, so good I say. Edited July 20, 2012 by Pull My Strings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 You hate Rangers, I get it. Thanks for sharing. Actually, you've got roughly half of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 They meet all SFL criteria. And what date was their ground registered to be eligible? As far as I remember they missed the deadline for the SPL so I assume that would also apply to the SFL. No ground registered - no entry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Sannox Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I still can't believe how little scrutiny Sir David Murray has come under through all this. No press and irate Rangers fans camped outside his Murrayfield home. All the anger seems to be pointed in the wrong direction. As for all the titles/history stuff, it's neither here nor there, as pretty much all non OF fans of my vintage have always referred to Rangers and Celtic as cheats and always will do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Ha ha, you said currant! Seriously, do you think anyone just turned round in the last few weeks/months and said "D'ye know, I've just decided I hate rangers"? I have hated rangers since the day I was told that I was less than "the peepul" simply because of the school I went to. I turned away from the other Ugly Sister at the same time - even at five years old, I didn't want to be one of the "with us or against us" brigade. Obviously I couldn't articulate why at that age, but some things just always seem wrong. My team have seen years of famine and years of relative feats, but they've always been a FOOTBALL club - nothing more, nothing less. As I grew up and matured, it became more and more obvious I had made the right choice. The only Scottish grounds where I have felt in real fear were the temples of bigotry. The only violence I suffered at a football match was when rangers visited RP. Outside of my personal experience, rangers continued to spread shame whenever they left our borders - even for so-called "friendly" matches. How many football fans would choose to riot on the night their team won their biggest trophy? In my youth, to be honest, the green Sisters appeared to be better ambassadors for our country - although the bar was set pretty damn low. The celtic of my youth were, in all honesty, an exciting team to watch and their fans (bar the eedjits who followed EVERY team in those days) appeared to enjoy themselves on their travels rather than treat away trips as invasions of enemy territory. In recent years, things have taken a turn for the worse. Both celtic and rangers have built their joint enterprise on an encouragement of bigotry - for all the lip service paid to "initiatives" and "campaigns", they both knew where the money was. Yes, both. From joint statements of their intent to leave Scottish football, to the decades of joint sponsorship deals, their relationship is one of incestuous self-interest. The best hope for Scotland is that, even if it does not deservedly die, the blue half will be far enough removed from their green partners for long enough that both their acolytes may start to follow their sides for footballing reasons or, in the case of the "minorities", drift away from the game in confusion, not knowing who they're supposed to hate anymore. It won't stop sectarianism in Scotland, but it will dim the two biggest beacons which attract the scum. Superp post. Greenie well deserved and the red dot given to the Dundee Utd guy was also deserved for disrespecting it. My story is almost identical to yours and my empathy stretches to your opinion. Nevertheless, in the spirit of compassion, not withstanding the fact that Rangers brought all this upon themselves, I am craving a return to the football and I am even prepared to give the decent Rangers fans an opportunity to create a new culture devoid of sectarianism ( I know, an impossible dream, but I'm an idealist). If they, and Celtic, would just conduct themselves like they are each one of 42, nothing more, nothing less. The quicker we achieve a semblance of normality, the quicker you and I can get back to despising one another. Having said that, my hatred of Kilmarnock will never have the same venom after all we've been through together. Anyone got a hanky ? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Assuming running-up debts leading to administration is also financial doping... presumably you'd expel Morton, Dundee, Livingston, Motherwell, Clachnacuddin, etc. from Scottish football too? What about MadVlad-style debt-for-equity doping? If it was done to benefit the team/club over a decade or more and they have been proven guilty - yes. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and vice-versa. In sport, rules are rules and there should be no get out clauses for serious offenders irrespective of who the offender is or what history the offender has. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 They've been punished for the two misdemeanours for which they've thus far been held culpable: (i) going into administration and (ii) bringing the game into disrepute, The punishments for those two offences seem entirely proportionate to me (indeed, I was pleasantly surprised at the transfer embargo and am pleased that the SFA have stuck their guns and forced it through), As for the rest, those are either sins of the company (which is now being wound up) or sins of the team (double contracts etc.) which have yet to be addressed. So far, so good I say. Seems like we're singing the same song to different tunes..... Do you honestly a fine of around 1% of the amount fiddled is proportionate? I've locked up prisoners doing five years and more for less than a million! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coqofthenorth Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Statement from Malcolm Murray saying that nothing has been signed with the SFA: http://www.rangers.c...article/2855575 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Cheer up if have their history they are effectivly a pheonix company and HMRC get very shirty with these, so expect the newco (with the history and honours to get a visit from Hector) Bonanza for lawyers, laffs for us and torment for the orcs. They're not a phoenix company. A phoenix company is one which is liquidated and is restarted by the same directors with the intention of trying to circumvent the liquidation process. That isn't what has happened here. The company is fucked. That's the bit creditors need to worry about. It's ludicrous to suggest that parliament would legislate with the express intention of killing a business which has been bought as a going concern by someone not associated with the original failed company. Edited July 20, 2012 by Pull My Strings 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Who are the "fit and proper" people behind the club? Not in SFL requirements. Have the club presented figures to satisfy the league they can complete their fixtures? Adjudged by electing clubs. Have they (á la Livvy) lodged a bond against the eventuality of their folding? Not in SFL requirements. Entirely optional. ARE THEY MEMBERS OF THE SFA? (answer's no, btw) NOT REQUIRED TO JOIN SFL, btw. I know they're being eased in, but Sevco are not yet SFA members*. And I don't believe the SFL (or SFA) are asking too many questions as to the structure or viability. Fair enough, but none of that equates to your prouncement that not arguable is that Sevco in no way fit the criteria for league membership, including not even being members of the SFA. which was my point. They currently fulfil all criteria. If they don't obtain SFA membership by Friday 27th July, they're out. Do you honestly a fine of around 1% of the amount fiddled is proportionate? I've locked up prisoners doing five years and more for less than a million! Tbf, it's not really 1%, fine wasn't regarding their Big Tax Case debts. And what date was their ground registered to be eligible? As far as I remember they missed the deadline for the SPL so I assume that would also apply to the SFL. No ground registered - no entry. They've theoretically 'til June 1st 2013 (my reading of SFL rule 86). Annan joined SFL after June 1st, afterall. Edited July 20, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musketeer Gripweed Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Can they still bring in youngsters during the embargo - 'Rangers' could still entice the bestest youngsters from everyone else !? What do you reckon the market value of Craig Sibbald is at the moment, £250K - £500K? How much would it take for Sevco to buy him, given the fact everyone knows they can only buy under 18's and are pretty fucking desperate? More money than than they think I would have thought. See, the landscape has changed now. No longer can they bully Scottish teams with money they can't refuse because the young laddies want to play for ra peepul. Feels good when you think about it,. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Yes. Of course they should have. Any and All individuals / clubs / members of sporting authorities proven to be involved in "fixing" sports results be it by way of fraud & deception, steroids/doping, financial doping, etc they should be banned for life. All trophies/awards that were won by the guilty by way of such cheating should be removed from them and the reason for their removal should be recorded in the record books for all to see as warning. No greenies left. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 They currently fulfil all criteria. If they don't obtain SFA membership by Friday 27th July, they're out. And the non registration of a ground????????????????? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 a business which has been bought as a going concern by someone not associated with the original failed company. I believe there is some doubt about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I still can't believe how little scrutiny Sir David Murray has come under through all this. No press and irate Rangers fans camped outside his Murrayfield home. All the anger seems to be pointed in the wrong direction. Indeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Seems like we're singing the same song to different tunes..... Do you honestly a fine of around 1% of the amount fiddled is proportionate? I've locked up prisoners doing five years and more for less than a million! 1% of what? The fine was for bringing the game into disrepute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) And the non registration of a ground????????????????? See previous. If SFL rule 86 debars Rangers it debarred Annan. Edited July 20, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I believe there is some doubt about that. Go on then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Hj - thanks for the point by point clarification. Now, would you accept this: Sevco tick absolutely none of the boxes which would normally be expected of a brand new club applying to join the SFL, unlike several other teams who have satisfied all "optional" requirements in the past and would no doubt do so at this time. Indeed, no other applications have been invited, such is Scottish football's indecent haste to return to the status quo. A bond, while optional, would be a reasonable request of a club with no business history. Simply to protect the remaining clubs in the event of Sevco going tits up. A history of SFA membership would be handy, to show dedication to the good of the game in Scotland (unless it's rangers' recent history) Some kind of business plan must surely be expected. Anyone and his dog can see they're going to struggle for cash, unless Chalie's angels show up with a chequebook. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coqofthenorth Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Full text from Malcolm Murray statement for those that can't get to the link..... RANGERS chairman Malcolm Murray has insisted tonight that an agreement with the SFA has not yet been signed. However,he has pointed out that the reality facing Rangers is to suffer sanctions or risk not playing at all. Earlier tonight the SFA released a statement saying Rangers had accepted a signing embargo from September 1 2012 to August 31 2013. He said:"Board members, the Manager and senior executives from the Club have been meeting with the SFA this week with the sole purpose of ensuring the long term future of Rangers. "For clarity, we have not signed any agreement yet and therefore believe the SFA's statement to be premature. "We have had days of discussions with the SFA and it is important for everyone, but most importantly our fans, to understand that the SFA said it would only transfer the membership to play football if we accepted some form of additional sanctions for the sins of previous regimes. "The choice is stark - take sanctions or risk not playing football at all. We do not wish to gamble with the Club's future so, under duress, we have taken the difficult decision to accept some sanctions in order to move forward. "A delayed transfer ban would be a bitter pill to swallow and will only be agreed to if the alternative is no football. "We would have a window in which to sign players enabling the manager to strengthen the squad which is critical for the Club to start the process of rebuilding. "We also regret that any agreement with the SFA appears not to have the support of the SPL and, as such, it still wishes to impose further sanctions on the Club for the actions of previous regimes despite already voting us out of its league. This is truly astounding to everyone at the Club who is now in charge of rebuilding Rangers from Division 3, particularly as the SPL are still trying to benefit from our media rights. "Whilst we are deeply frustrated that the Club and the new owners will have to accept some punishments for the sins of previous regimes, we are at the point where wehave to move forward and get back playing football. "We will all continue to work hard over the coming days in order to begin the season and play our first match next Sunday. "Rangers fans around the world have been tremendous in their support for the Club overthe last six months - through what has been an horrendous period in our history. "Supporters have been badly bruised by recent events and they more than anyone deserve to see their team playing football again. To move forward we must all now rally behind the Manager and Club through this rebuilding process. "We have a long road ahead but every one of us involved in taking the Club forward is committed to restoring Rangers to greatness again and we will not falter in our commitment." Edited July 20, 2012 by coqofthenorth 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.