Itwiznaeme Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 My link Burley's latest pile of shite. I’ve a lot of time for McCoist and hope things can work out to his satisfaction. No surprise there. Both Burley and McCoist are off the same mold. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Here's a fun detail: so far as I can make out, Rangers will not be entitled to any share of TV money from broadcasting their SFL games. http://wingsland.podgamer.com/a-thing-we-just-noticed/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Let's twist again, like we've been doing all summer: http://wingsland.pod...did-all-summer/ Thats a fantastic bit of writing mate, spot on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MK Col Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 1342956345[/url]' post='6455379']My link Burley's latest pile of shite. In fairness, it's less shite than normal. Maybe accepting the party is coming to an end and it's time to call a cab. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Here's a fun detail: so far as I can make out, Rangers will not be entitled to any share of TV money from broadcasting their SFL games. http://wingsland.pod...e-just-noticed/ In the debate over whether the SPL buys the broadcast rights to SFL games featuring Rangers, we’ve just spotted a rather interesting quirk. Sevco Scotland Limited was accepted to the SFL as an Associate Member, and will not be eligible for full Member status for four years. Rule 19 of the SFL Constitution says: “An Associate Member shall have no financial interest in the assets of the League and shall not be accorded any voting rights.” We assume “the assets of the League” include its media rights. Rule 19 would seem to suggest that if the SFL does want to sell “Rangers” games to the SPL – or indeed to anyone else – not only will the newco not be entitled to a vote on the matter, but it won’t be entitled to any of the money either. We haven’t seen anyone else mention this. It seems quite significant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only A Game ! Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) I stopped reading this thread when it was confirmed division 3 for Sevco, what have I missed? Anyone fancy summarising? TV rights issue seems to be blocking confirmation of Rangers SFA membership. Doncaster, having devalued the SPL TV rights by his outbursts over the last 3 months, now has SKY TV on his back wanting the rights to Rangers games included in the package, presumably the package they are about to sign up for, and presumably at a reduced rate. Clearly that isnt within Doncasters power to deliver in his own right but somehow he has managed to get it onto the agenda as far as the terms and conditions of Rangers SFA membership is concerned. He can now blame the SFL if the SPL TV deal goes tits up. Doncaster states that if they cant have the SFL TV rights to pass on to SKY as part of the SPL package then they cant pay the £2mill to the SFL. I think what he actually means is that they cant justify it, rather than cant financially afford it. If the SFL believe they can negotiate a separate deal with SKY and its a lucrative one, then I think there is merit in what Doncaster says about the £2 million. If the SFL have their own TV deal then why should they get the £2 million ? The SFL will obviously want to get the best TV deal they can and see their way of doing that as being a separate deal with SKY. SKY want it included with the SPL rights. Doncaster has well and truly f**cked up the TV deal in other words and SKY are holding all the aces. What should happen ? Doncaster should tell SKY to ram it and that the SFL is not included on whats on the table. SKY can then take a decision as to what they want to pay for the SPL. Doncaster, unfortunately has backed himself into a corner by his devaluing of the deal and will have to accept whats on offer before resigning immediatly. The SFL should cut their own deal to the highest bidder for the 3 years they'll have Rangers and they should waive the £2 million. What will happen ? It depends on who's got the most bottle and can afford to take it to the brink. The SFL I suspect as they have nothing to lose (i.e no TV deal in place as it stands at the moment) Edited July 22, 2012 by Only A Game ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Great article but am I the only one that is completely bamboozled by the fact that a club that has, or is about to be liquidated can start up with the same or very similar name. Thats not what the female legal eagle said on Newsnight a month or so back. She was catigorical that they couldnt use the name "Rangers" or "The Rangers" as it was too close to the bust company and it didnt represent the area that the club plied its trade and once BDO were in place the first thing they would do is tell Sevco that! So far as I've been able to ascertain, the rules preventing a phoenix company using the old company's name only apply if the phoenix has some or most of the same directors as the oldco. It has nothing to do with the idiotic pish spouted by Sevco FC fans about the "club" and "company" being separate entities, it simply appears to be a slightly bizarre facet of the law that you can buy a bankrupt company's assets and then also take over their name so long as you're not one of the old directors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishes Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Here's a fun detail: so far as I can make out, Rangers will not be entitled to any share of TV money from broadcasting their SFL games. http://wingsland.pod...e-just-noticed/ Please, let this be true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speckled tangerine Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 My link Burley's latest pile of shite. You're being kind calling it shite. Part of the problem in the first place was overspending, but seems new model Rangers are at it already. Million quid a month on players and backroom staff? Ridiculous! Get them all tae f**k and if it's a tenner a week like Shire back in the day......tough. You'd soon see who the real 'rangers' men are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p&b is a disgrace Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 A company is about to be liquidated, not the club. After that company is liquidated the new company is likely to take over its name. It was the club, though, who allegedly used illegally registered players and who allegedly paid player through an incorrectly structured EBT scheme. So, if ( as bears claim ) there's continuity of the club - then they still need to face up to those issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 It was the club, though, who allegedly used illegally registered players and who allegedly paid player through an incorrectly structured EBT scheme. So, if ( as bears claim ) there's continuity of the club - then they still need to face up to those issues. No, no, no... you're not getting it. The club is the entity who wins leagues, cups, gets it up ra' Sellik, and has cuddly loveable fans. They are responsible for nuthin'. The company is the entity who does all the naughty stuff, and Minty, Whytey and Greeny are the individuals responsible for any naughtiness. They are responsible for everything. ... get with the programme FFS man! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It was the club, though, who allegedly used illegally registered players and who allegedly paid player through an incorrectly structured EBT scheme. So, if ( as bears claim ) there's continuity of the club - then they still need to face up to those issues. Without their club there would be no "Rangers" business - simple fact - the business/club are one and the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 A company is about to be liquidated, not the club. After that company is liquidated the new company is likely to take over its name. In the case of Rangers FC (IA), the club was a company. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeChuck Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Well if the Daily Record says it, it must be true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Sergio Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I'm offended that I share oxygen with Craig Burley. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Well if the Daily Record says it, it must be true. The bears believed all the good news stories that the Daily Record printed about "Rangers" before it died so why do they have such difficulty believing that one!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 EBTs and forfeited games... I give you Keith Macleod of The Spartans Ally, who are you trying to kid. This is what gets me. If the dual contracts thing is proved, how can there possibly be any debate about the stripping of titles? All manner of precedents exist for clubs being rightly hammered for one-off mistakes. Nothing, but nothing could begin to compare to what Rangers seem to have done. Apart from "we'd rather keep them, thanks", what possible argument could Rangers have against the honours' removal? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It was the club, though, who allegedly used illegally registered players and who allegedly paid player through an incorrectly structured EBT scheme. So, if ( as bears claim ) there's continuity of the club - then they still need to face up to those issues. Yes, the club can be punished for what (allegedly) happened in its past. The transfer embargo, assuming it is finalised, is proof of that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 So far as I've been able to ascertain, the rules preventing a phoenix company using the old company's name only apply if the phoenix has some or most of the same directors as the oldco. It has nothing to do with the idiotic pish spouted by Sevco FC fans about the "club" and "company" being separate entities, it simply appears to be a slightly bizarre facet of the law that you can buy a bankrupt company's assets and then also take over their name so long as you're not one of the old directors. Why is that bizarre? Honestly, the continuation issue is a complete red herring. The Rangers fans are correct in making a division between the club and the company - but dual contracts pertains entirely to the club and therefore will have to be dealt with by Rangers FC. If anyone can explain how Rangers intend to field a team in a week or two's time... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth_Glasgow Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 THE OFFICIAL RANGERS LIQUIDATION RAP The Liquidation Rap Wear headphones for full effect. Hope you enjoy it, muhfuckers. That is superb TRS. You just left Traynor and Charles Green with third degree burns. Could someone who isn't banned from RangersMedia post this phat rhyme there, please? It would be wonderfully received, I'm sure. I tried to register again but the Sevco mods aren't having it. Could someone please post this amazing rap there? The results would be hilarious. 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.