Monkey Tennis Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 It should be clear to anyone that Rangers and the plastics generate the most money in Scottish football and only right they get the benefit of it. And - for the third time - my suggestion was that cup ties become home and away, two-legged ties. More money generated over all, each club benefits from their home gate and all arguments about the rights and wrongs of gate-sharing are erased. I see nothing wrong with a club like Hibs relying on their own support for income. And, if it's a competitive league you are interested in, then I'll restate my case that the best solution for all would be to see Rangers and the plastics leaving the Scottish leagues. A Scottish league with Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen and the wee Hibs being genuine title contenders would be much more attractive and I'm certain crowds would soar. Did Hibs not have a massive boost in crowds the last time they were relegated and went on to win promotion? I'm sure they did - being able to be genuinely compete for a title was a major attraction. And why wouldn't it be? It's pretty much the same for most sports the world over - people want to see the best. And they'll pay to do just that. This is a strange post. The second part recognises the benefits and appeal of a more egalitarian, competitive structure; yet the first part says you'd want no part of such a set-up, because you favour steps to exacerbate inequalities in income and resources. How do you reconcile this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Why did he bother wanting a CVA to start with? What difference would that have made, unless he really wanted to pay back the creditors you stole from? You're correct no difference,he wanted to pay back the creditors that Craig Whyte gazumped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Like to explain that? Let me guess,more nonsense about new club. The part in bold,were Rangers in the SPL last season and was there a vote as to whether they would remain in the SPL,a yes or no will suffice on that question. No. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnforever1992 Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Remember those companies that are going to invest in Rangers international Football Club PLC could be tax dodging companies? Blue Pitch Holding<<tax dodging company Margarita Funds Holding Trust<<tax dodging company Norne Anstalt<<off shore company? Hargreave Hale Limited<<<tax dodging company Artemis Investment Management LLP<<<tax dodging company Cazenove Capital Management Limited<<<tax dodging company Legal & General Investment Management Limited<<tax dodging company Insight Investment Management (Global) Limited<<tax dodging company Ticketus did the same with Lloyds TSB paying them back through season tickets. Edited December 6, 2012 by Bairnforever1992 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 You're correct no difference,he wanted to pay back the creditors that Craig Whyte gazumped. So why doesn't he pay them back now? After all the club is debt free and it was the club thy owed the money? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Like to explain that? Let me guess,more nonsense about new club. The part in bold,were Rangers in the SPL last season and was there a vote as to whether they would remain in the SPL,a yes or no will suffice on that question. I'm not one to get hung up on calling the new club Sevco or The Rangers, or anything. I'll even accept a degree of continuity, although we can't pretend that nothing's changed. The notion that the good stuff can be retained, while the bad stuff gets banished doesn't sit at all well. As far as league entry is concerned though, the 2012 version was new. It wasn't a member of the SPL and given that it's the top flight, it would have been wrong to admit them. To stick them in the first would also have been hopelessly disrespectful to the teams they'd have leapfrogged . Even their entry into the 3rd without a bidding process isn't right, but most of us can live with it. To not accept the wording that says Rangers were 'kicked out' by other SPL clubs or couldn't 'stay in' the SPL isn't point scoring pedantry - it's simply reflecting the reality of why Rangers are currently in the bottom tier. Edited December 6, 2012 by Monkey Tennis 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I'm not one to get hung up on calling the new club Sevco or The Rangers, or anything. I'll even accept a dgree of continuity, although we can't pretend that nothing's changed. The notion that the good stuff can be retained, while the bad stuff gets banished doesn't sit at all well. As far as league entry is concerned though, the 2012 version was new. It wasn't a member of the SPL and given that it's the top flight, it would have been wrong to admit them. To stick them in the first would also have been hopelessly disrespectful to the teams they'd have leapfrogged . Even their entry into the 3rd without a bidding process isn't right, but most of us can live with it. To not accept the wording that says Rangers were 'kicked out' by other SPL clubs or couldn't 'stay in' the SPL isn't point scoring pedantry - it's simply reflecting the reality of why Rangers are currently in the bottom tier. C'mon, there's no need for a big sensible explanation...he asked for a simple yes or no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 C'mon, there's no need for a big sensible explanation...he asked for a simple yes or no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 C'mon, there's no need for a big sensible explanation...he asked for a simple yes or no. You're right. The answer's no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 No. So there wasn't a vote as to whether the club remained in the SPL. Aye ok then,i'll leave it at that with you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 So why doesn't he pay them back now? After all the club is debt free and it was the club thy owed the money? It was the oldco,The Rangers Football Club PLC that owed the money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 So there wasn't a vote as to whether the club remained in the SPL. Correct. There was however a vote to decide wether a new club should join the SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 It was the oldco,The Rangers Football Club PLC that owed the money. And you want continuation. Just not that bit obviously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I'm not one to get hung up on calling the new club Sevco or The Rangers, or anything. I'll even accept a degree of continuity, although we can't pretend that nothing's changed. The notion that the good stuff can be retained, while the bad stuff gets banished doesn't sit at all well. As far as league entry is concerned though, the 2012 version was new. It wasn't a member of the SPL and given that it's the top flight, it would have been wrong to admit them. To stick them in the first would also have been hopelessly disrespectful to the teams they'd have leapfrogged . Even their entry into the 3rd without a bidding process isn't right, but most of us can live with it. To not accept the wording that says Rangers were 'kicked out' by other SPL clubs or couldn't 'stay in' the SPL isn't point scoring pedantry - it's simply reflecting the reality of why Rangers are currently in the bottom tier. Fair enough,the SPL vote is accepted but after the vote went against the club why then did SPL clubs want the club fast-tracked into the first division. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsy Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 And you want continuation. Just not that bit obviously. Transference of the SFA membership from oldco to newco ensures the continuation,Henrik. Whether people accept that or not is up to them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenolly Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Fair enough,the SPL vote is accepted but after the vote went against the club why then did SPL clubs want the club fast-tracked into the first division. Was it the clubs or was it Doncaster??? I seem to remember he was pushing this too 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Fair enough,the SPL vote is accepted but after the vote went against the club why then did SPL clubs want the club fast-tracked into the first division. Well that's easy. The SPL chairmen wanted to appease their own fans by not admitting the Newco to the SPL. However, they wanted any financial damage restricted by getting them into the top flight within a year. It was disgraceful and was upliftingly rejected by most SFL clubs. That mine wasn't among this majority is a source of real anger and shame. I've no difficulty in dealing with truths, even if they involve being hugely critical of my own team. Give it a try. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burma Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 why then did SPL clubs want the club fast-tracked into the first division. It was fan pressure that prevented the new club from starting life in the top division. It was fan pressure that prevented the new club, team & business from starting life in the first division. The chairmen of the SPL clubs and the high heid yins of the SFA (along with the vast vast majority of the MSM) wanted to circumvent their own rules and allow the new club to start off as high as possible. Chuckie Cheese himself was desperate to start his new club and business in the SPL. So much so he is now in the huff. Fan power, of a kind never seen pre internet, won the day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) Transference of the SFA membership from oldco to newco ensures the continuation,Henrik. Whether people accept that or not is up to them. Rangers' share in the SPL was transferred to Dundee. Does that mean that Dundee are also a continuation of Rangers? There would have been no need for transference of membership if there had been continuation. Whether people accept that or not is up to them. Edited December 6, 2012 by Captain_Sensible 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Sensible Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 So there wasn't a vote as to whether the club remained in the SPL. Correct. There wasn't a vote as to whether the club remained in the SPL. There was a vote as to whether the brand new club called The Rangers should gain entry to the SPL. 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.