P45 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Green is a genius if he manages to flog even one £304 season ticket. That's pricey for a 3rd division club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huckleberry Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Rumour has it that a certain west Fife club is up for grabs as the owner is "retiring". Given the open letter to their fans distancing the board from the chairmans rantings its fair to say that the chairman, (who is not a Rangers man unlike the owner), wont be an impediment to a newco takeover. Makes sense as the stadium is SPL standard and cheaper to run for a few years than costly Ibrox. Given the level of Rangers support eminating from Fife it could be a shrewd move by the Blue Knights. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 How would we notice , because I am not sure you could be more insufferable Oh believe me i can get a whole lot worse 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 I know exactly what you mean about the so called diddy supporters, T_S_A_R really has shown his true colours in this thread and become totally insufferable, I wouldn't mind his opinions and welcome the discussion but when he was shown to be so wrong about Lord Glennie's report he has disappeared totally after posting about twenty posts a minute on the subject before. You probably missed my post which was addressed towards you on the subject, I'd like to know what your opinions are on it if you don't mind? They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Rumour has it that a certain west Fife club is up for grabs as the owner is "retiring". Given the open letter to their fans distancing the board from the chairmans rantings its fair to say that the chairman, (who is not a Rangers man unlike the owner), wont be an impediment to a newco takeover. Makes sense as the stadium is SPL standard and cheaper to run for a few years than costly Ibrox. Given the level of Rangers support eminating from Fife it could be a shrewd move by the Blue Knights. Raith Rovers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huckleberry Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Raith Rovers? That'd be in the east of fife surely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Sammy will surely And the big hoose guy 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough. I thought they said expulsion was too severe, I don't remember seeing anything about suspension? On the same token, did they not also say the Scottish Cup ban, or sanctions of that ilk, were too lenient? Honestly can't remember now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough. They can also give them any punishment outwidth the rules as well (it's within the SFA rules that they can also give any punishment they see fit not just what's written down) secondly the punishment they said was to severe was before Rangers gambled the future of scottish football by going to Court . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough. They said one punishment was in their opinion too severe, another was in their opinion too lenient, so they opted for a middle ground. That middle ground was taken away by Rangers going to CoS, so they are now more than entitled to pick either option. Returning to CoS would be futile if they were suspended or terminated. Although I do fully expect they would go back to CoS, because that decision would kill them and then what else would they have to lose? ETA: It doesn't matter anyway though, because they will be liquidated in 7 days time. Edited June 8, 2012 by Spain 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parscelona Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Rumour has it that a certain west Fife club is up for grabs as the owner is "retiring". Given the open letter to their fans distancing the board from the chairmans rantings its fair to say that the chairman, (who is not a Rangers man unlike the owner), wont be an impediment to a newco takeover. Makes sense as the stadium is SPL standard and cheaper to run for a few years than costly Ibrox. Given the level of Rangers support eminating from Fife it could be a shrewd move by the Blue Knights. Behave. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 This has sprung up on Rangers Media, claiming that Green's loan as laid out in the CVA is not a loan after all. What puzzles me is he says that one tabloid went as far as saying it to be repaid in full by 2020, which is actually the wording in the CVA. So - bullshit or truth? There has been a lot of mostly negative talk, with regards to how Charles Green has funded his offer for the club and his offer to creditors. The common notion is that Charles Green is loaning his investment, a loan which is repayable through certain criteria, and with interest. Many in the mainstream media have jumped on it and incorrectly tried to declare that Green isn't really making an investment at all, just lending us money until we can pay it back some way down the line - one tabloid even went as far to say that the loan had to repaid in full by 2020. Let me clear this up right now. In order to achieve a CVA, Green has had to pump the cash in to fund the club from June 1st - when the club's money essentially ran out - as well as fund his offer to creditors. Although it is not certain yet if the CVA will be achieved, it is looking good, although we have nothing concrete that can be relied upon at this stage. What funding options were available to Charles Green? 1. A loan is made from Green to the club - which is what he has done. If the CVA is achieved, then that loan turns into capital, via shares, and the club exits administration. This loan will not be repaid if the creditors accept their offer. I can absolutely say that for certain. If the creditors do not accept their offer, the loan then becomes repayable to Green. This is the quickest and best way of getting the money in and getting the deal done. He is not allowed to officially say that this will happen, as that would constitute an offer and would be the same as option 2, which you can see below. 2. Money is invested as capital. Under the rules as they have been explained to me, an offer would then have to be made for all remaining shares, such as those owned by Dave King. This is very time consuming and costly. Obviously, all the ins and outs of this process are very complicated and well over the heads of most of us. What is also not helping, is that some people who actually know the ins and outs, are deliberately stoking up the fire to create mischief, and to follow their own petty agendas. We are having enough trouble with our existing enemies, without some of our own support being obstructive and divisive. We have already seen a barrage of negative stories trying to derail this process, and some of these stories have come from so-called Rangers fans, who now seem to want us to be liquidated, so that their favoured party can gain control. Firstly we were told that Green has no money, despite the fact that he has proven that he has. Then we were told that Green's consortium were deserting him, even though nobody who has been declared as being involved, have done so. Remember when Brian Kennedy said that if his and The Blue Knight's offer was not accepted by 12pm the next day, a CVA would be impossible? That's funny, because Green came in later than that and still managed to get an offer out to creditors. We have had accusations of David Low is involved, when he is not. We heard rumours that Dave King was suing the club a couple of weeks ago, but he has yet to file any papers? He has yet to provide Duff and Phelps with any evidence whatsoever and his statement yesterday was just another attempt to derail this process, to benefit himself, or another. There is much, much more that I simply cannot tell you that has been done to try to disrupt this process, by so-called Rangers fans. They really should now give it up and let the club get on with it. I am not saying that we should not keep asking Charles Green the important questions and the RFFF are doing a great job (statements apart!) at pushing Green in every direction, to ensure that this is getting done properly and with the best intentions. There are still a lot of valid questions that need answered, but the more time we spend trying to get answers to ridiculous accusations, the more valuable time is taken away from the vitally important issues. The most important thing right now is that the creditors accept their offer, next Thursday at 10am. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough. Is that not the reason that the SFA are waiting for Rangers to decide upon whether they are to appeal Lord Glennie's decision to hand the matter back to the appellate panel rather than the disciplinary panel? This way it removes any scope for Rangers to return to the CoS as they have been given the chance already to appeal to have the matter dealt with by the disciplinary panel. Do you then believe that Rangers will appeal Lord Glennie's decision that the appellate panel should make a judgment and can use a sanction which the original panel deemed too severe but the appellate stated categorically was not too severe in the context of no other sanctions being available to the original panel? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Good job Dundee Hibernian are already on the hate list for boycotting. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9319815/Rangers-newco-may-struggle-to-be-voted-into-SPL-says-Dundee-United-chairman-Stephen-Thompson.html Fair play to Thompson, time some of the other clubs - including Celtic were developing some cojones 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 the punishment they said was to severe was before Rangers gambled the future of scottish football by going to Court . Are you still spouting that utter drivel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_of_licht Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 (edited) They can obviously give Rangers ANY punishment within the rules. I think it would be straight back to the CoS if they hand out a penalty they have already said themself is too severe. That is why i see the Scottish Cup Ban as the best available punishment. We will all find out soon enough. And it would likely be straight back out of the CoS with a flea in their ear after what Lord Glennie said: The fact that I find the imposition of the additional sanctions to be ultra vires does not necessarily mean that the petitioners will escape to a lighter and ineffective punishment. That is entirely a matter for the Appeal Tribunal and not for this court. But as we've seen one senior judge type can disagree with another senior judge type's interpretation. So who's to say a third senior judge type won't disagree with the second senior judge type. More money for QC's, less for grass seed. Edited June 8, 2012 by ray_of_licht 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_of_licht Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 @BBCAlLamont - Right, plenty to follow from Charles Green but first ...the admins are moving to terminate Dave King's directorship of Rangers Oh Dave. You angered the beast 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T_S_A_R Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 And it would likely be straight back out of the CoS with a flea in their ear after what Lord Glennie said: But as we've seen one senior judge type can disagree with another senior judge type's interpretation. So who's to say a third senior judge type won't disagree with the second senior judge type. More money for QC's, less for grass seed. half your quote isn't glennie. the part that is him makes a non definite statement then says 'is not a matter for this court' ie. no opinion. so completely irrelevant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoMaSano Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Possibly. The SFL rules were quoted on here a few pages back (probably lots of pages back now!) and the wording is relatively vague. It does allow transfer under certain conditions and it has to go to the SFL board I was working under the assumption that if "relegated" from the SPL they would automatically become members of the SFL. Thats how normal relegation works. Whether or not that would be the case, I dont know! The SFL Rules quoted before deal with how they would handle a newco from within their leagues. Don't think they cover this scenario. With regards to Rangers automatically becoming a member of the SFL, I don't think this would happen in the scenario that the SPL don't transfer the league share. If this happens then Rangers won't have been "relegated", however they will stop being a member of the SPL. If they have their SFA membership transferred they could apply to become a member of the SFL, but they wouldn't automatically become a member. What the SFL rules say about relation from the SPL: 15. RELEGATION FROM AND PROMOTION TO THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE15.1 Notwithstanding any other provision in these Rules, any football club which is relegated, in terms of the Settlement Agreement between the League and The Scottish Premier League, from The Scottish Premier League, shall automatically be admitted to full membership of the League and shall in the season immediately following that relegation participate in the higher or highest Division of the League. What the SPL have to say about relegation to the SFL: Membership, Promotion and Relegation A2.1 The League shall consist of 12 leading association football clubs in Scotland. The association football clubs eligible to participate in the League in any Season shall, subject to the Articles of Association and Rules, be those Clubs which participated in the League in the immediately preceding Season, except that, subject to Rules A2.2, A2.3 and A2.4, the Club finishing in last place in the League in the immediately preceding Season shall not be eligible to participate in the League and shall be relegated to the SFL and the Candidate Club shall be promoted from the SFL and admitted entry to the League. So relegation and promotion between the two leagues is only as laid out in the rules. And only relates to the top team in SFL1 and the bottom team in the SPL. Any other team leaving the SPL for any other reason isn't being "relegated" and so wouldn't automatically drop into SFL1. Any other movement between the leagues due to Rangers going bust would have to be done through application (Dundee have already applied to be in next seasons SPL and Rangers would have to apply for a place in the SFL). Though if they got kicked out during the season then Dunfermline would not have been relegated, this is laid out clearly in the SPL Rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dundee Hibernian Posted June 8, 2012 Share Posted June 8, 2012 Good job Dundee Hibernian are already on the hate list for boycotting. http://www.telegraph...n-Thompson.html Fair play to Thompson, time some of the other clubs - including Celtic were developing some cojones They wouldn't get in my (big) house anyway! Yes, there is value in writing letters! 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.