MattBairn Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Oh really? Got any rules you can quote which outline this? I do seem to remember that when we were looking down the Murrayfield route that, despite there only being about 4 rugby games there during the football season, we were told that it wasnt possible as we didnt have priority of fixtures. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 In fact, I have found this "robust" rule regarding tenure :- "A club participating in the league must :- have such other rights of occupation or tenure in its Registered Ground as may be approved by the Board. " 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 I do seem to remember that when we were looking down the Murrayfield route that, despite there only being about 4 rugby games there during the football season, we were told that it wasnt possible as we didnt have priority of fixtures. Yeah, but they are the people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Hampden?? But but the spl dont allow sharing with a non spl side lol Yes they do. Try to keep up. There were two pages about this last night. Hampden could be used 2012 -2013 season but is not available between October 2013 and August 2014 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glensburgh Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Oh really? Got any rules you can quote which outline this? The season Falkirk were on the verge of promotion they asked Jim Ballantyne about a ground share at NB. No problem, says Jim. The agreement failed as the leader of NLC decided it would be detrimental to "the team from North Lanarkshire" to allow FFC to have first call on dates. Personally I reckon he was protecting Motherwell, not Airdrie, as they were at risk of relegation that season. Falkirk fans may be better placed to give dates, quotes etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 No think Queens Park might have something to say having been there for just a few years.... I don't really give a fcuk, just putting right a common misconception a lot of people have, the SPL will allow groundsharing with an SFL club. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 In fact, I have found this "robust" rule regarding tenure :- "A club participating in the league must :- have such other rights of occupation or tenure in its Registered Ground as may be approved by the Board. " That could be arranged or..... a dispensation granted by SPL to allow it to happen. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 No rules but when we had to do the groundshare thing St Johnstone was the preferred option due to the A9 being slightly better for fans to travel than the A96, the St Johnstone chairman put a block on this because he did not want to give up his club's priority to the stadium. The SPL will allow it but SPL fixtures must be given priority this has led to the urban myth that the SPL blocked the move, My link Read the thread earlier. "Primacy of tenure" was a bullshit excuse concocted to stop Falkirk being promoted. My analogy was getting a KB from a nightclub because you don't have the right shoes. The actual rules are deliberately vague. It pretty much says "We'll decide on a whim if we like your groundsharing scheme". There were definitely quotes at the time though that made it clear the SPL couldn't consider any of their sides to have the required primacy of tenure when sharing with a club from a different league structure, as necessarily if fixtures clashed they would not be able to ensure "their" match would take precedence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattBairn Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Read the thread earlier. "Primacy of tenure" was a bullshit excuse concocted to stop Falkirk being promoted. My analogy was getting a KB from a nightclub because you don't have the right shoes. The actual rules are deliberately vague. It pretty much says "We'll decide on a whim if we like your groundsharing scheme". There were definitely quotes at the time though that made it clear the SPL couldn't consider any of their sides to have the required primacy of tenure when sharing with a club from a different league structure, as necessarily if fixtures clashed they would not be able to ensure "their" match would take precedence. Surely now that Rangers cant guarantee that theyll fulfill their fixtures this season, they should be removed from the league immediately? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Matthew Lindsay@MattLindsayETNine-In-A-Row greats Jorg Albertz and Brian Laudrup dismiss claims of financial wrongdoing at Ibrox in the 1990s in @TheEveningTimes today. Why not ask Laudrup to be next first minister? He seems to be an expert on league reconstruction, youth development, and now financial irregularities and general economics. All on the basis that he was quite a lot better than everyone else at football. @mattslaterbbc: Rangers crisis staggers to the Strand http://t.co/m829zZ5f admins argue for £3.6m of #RFC cash. At least 4 others say it's theirs Wait for it @mattslaterbbc: Those 4 parties arguing with admins for that £3.6m? Ticketus, HMRC, the players' pension fund &, wait for it, Craig Whyte! #RFC popcorn moment already - smashing Craig Whyte really does have a brass neck. He's basically claiming £3.6 million quid for putting Rangers into administration. I'm guessing we want anyone but the admins to win? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Craig Whyte really does have a brass neck. He's basically claiming £3.6 million quid for putting Rangers into administration. I'm guessing we want anyone but the admins to win? we want HMRC to win, I guess, but be a laugh if Whytey got to trouser it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Yeah, but they are the people. Yes, exactly. There is no question that Rangers wouldn't be allowed to share at Hampden. Just as long as people stop pretending that the situation with Falkirk was anything other than a made up bullshit excuse to prevent Falkirk being promoted. Which incidentally, I was fine with at the time and fine with now. I don't think we deserved to be promoted. But the "primacy of tenure" is a nonsense - they just make it up as they go along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 8, 2012 Author Share Posted March 8, 2012 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatwad Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 If Craig Whyte walks away with that 3.6 mil it'll be the funniest part of this entire affair, even funnier than the whole jelly and ice cream thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Why we really need Rangers not to fulfill their fixtures. From Rangerstaxcase.com "Why have they mentioned not fulfilling all fixtures this season? If they are going to skip the cost cutting and proceed straight to liquidation, failing to show up becomes inevitable. I understand (but have not yet verified) that the process for a team that does not fulfill all of its fixtures is that all of its results are voided and it finishes the season on zero points. (or -10 points in Rangers’ case due to the penalty for insolvency). This would relegate Rangers from the SPL. The number of clubs who would likely object to a newco being dropped into the SPL could then start to rise. The chances of the SPL getting bogged down in court proceedings start to increase dramatically. Thus far, the SFA and the SPL have failed miserably to provide leadership in this process. Only recently stirred from their slumbers, they do not appear to have thought any of these processes through. It is vital that these organisations start thinking and listening to expert advice. They must figure out all of the pathways and pitfalls now." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWatt Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Got a link for this? Pretty disgraceful if Rangers are treated differently to every other football club. HMRC voted against Dundee's CVA. This is significant and clears the way for either a liquidation of assets or a CVA. "HMRC has held meetings with both the Rangers administrators and the SPL to stress that the tax authorities would prefer not to see the club fail... they are willing to have Rangers continue as an existing business even if the club lose the tax case in respect of Employee Benefit Trusts but only if Craig Whyte is out of the picture. although an adverse decision by the tribunal that is considering the EBT case could saddle Rangers with a bill of £24 million in back tax, £12 million in interest and as much as £14 million in penalties, HMRC will not stand in the way of a Company Voluntary Agreement through which creditors emerge with a percentage of the cash owed to them and that this has been sanctioned at Treasury level. However, that will only be possible if there is what has been described within HMRC as 'regime change'. In other words, Whyte must have no connection with Rangers at the end of the process." http://www.telegraph...heir-hands.html Edited March 8, 2012 by MacWatt 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 That's just plain wrong, and sets a precedent for HMRC's conduct from now on. They cannot realisticly go to any other club now and say we will not accept a CVA, as that club will be able to point to this decision and say "hang on, you can't have it both ways". Woudl you like a tin opener for that can of worms? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chico Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 @BBCAlLamont: Regan and the rest of the SFA board are meeting to hear the findings of Lord Nimmo-Smith's inquiry into Rangers' recent financial dealings. Oh to be a fly on the wall for that one. 'so they're guilty of everything?' 'yup' 'ok no punishment then guys' 'agreed' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 That's just plain wrong, and sets a precedent for HMRC's conduct from now on. They cannot realisticly go to any other club now and say we will not accept a CVA, as that club will be able to point to this decision and say "hang on, you can't have it both ways". Woudl you like a tin opener for that can of worms? Or any business for that matter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 On a larger scale though, have they not already shown with Vodaphone that certain companies can get away with misdemeanours that others will not? 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.