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...
P45 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 RT @TyroneSTV: Newco rangers cman malcolm murray says any agreement wth the sfa doesn't appear to hve spl support, saying spl still wants further sanctions. ____ I've no idea where he gets that from. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Wutherspoon 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 From that statement, "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." How many times? Ending up in SFL3 isn't a punishment, that's what happens to any new club joining the SFL. Interesting comment about the SPL trying to benefit from their media rights though. Surely the SPL can't have anything to do with Sevco now? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidthebaw Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 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. Thanks for clarifying that and destroying my hopes for their destruction via that route just have to wait on them imploding for other reasons Mind you if they came back minus the baggage, well maybe the bampots that support my team will feck off as well and we become a football team without the political and religious baggage as well (I have a dream!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 1% of what? The fine was for bringing the game into disrepute. 1% of the amount of their admitted tax fraud for the last year. I'm simply trying to emphasise the scale of their crimes - which is what brought the game into disrepute. Over 14 million pounds! And they get a fine which they could have payed if 6500 more orcs had bothered their arse to go to cup games last season. It's not even a slap on the wrist - if it's actually been paid (deducted from SPL money? disappeared into oldco's debts?) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeeYouSoonNewco Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 ^^^ verge of tears That just sums it all up for me tbh, RST are living on another planet where punished doesn't exist for the crimes committed :/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee 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. They tick most of the boxes actually... in terms of facilities, stadium, squad [their current squad looks easily capably of being SFL standard], anticipated crowds. Clearly they have no back accounts and haven't yet played a proper game, but those aren't official requirements, and exist due to the particular situation. 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. Possibly. Btw, I think Livingston were asked for a bond to play SFL1, I don't think it was for SFL3. According to Gordon McDougall (club rep of Livingston btw!!) on the radio last Friday, the clubs discussed a bond when electing them, but dediced not to apply one. 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) No, I disagree there, and regardless they're probably going to produce one of the longest and most illustrious (honours-wise etc.) SFA memberships existing before the Friday 27th deadline. 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. This was up to the clubs to ascertain when questioning Green. I get what you are saying, totally... but equally, what you are saying isn't what your initial statement which I took issue with said. They've thusfar met every criteria required. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Interesting comment about the SPL trying to benefit from their media rights though. Surely the SPL can't have anything to do with Sevco now? I assume that's a reference to SPL wanting to buy SFL's TV rights (i.e. rights to Rangers games) for £1M had SFL accepted them into SFL1. RT @TyroneSTV: Newco rangers cman malcolm murray says any agreement wth the sfa doesn't appear to hve spl support, saying spl still wants further sanctions. ____ I've no idea where he gets that from. Me similarly. He's referring to potential of SPL deciding to strike league titles from the record. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Statement from Malcolm Murray saying that nothing has been signed with the SFA: http://www.rangers.c...article/2855575 25th July 2011: http://www.uktimes.co.uk/sport/rangers-v-malmo-ally-mccoist-scarred-by-champions-league-defeats-to-fbk-kaunas-and-levski-sofia/ 20th July 2012: http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2855575 Changes? Edited July 20, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Some media types had a dig at us 'internet knuckledraggers' for apparently kicking a club when they were down, and for wanting nothing less than to see them 'do a Third Lanark' and die. Seems to me that those in charge of the entity formerly owned by Craig Whyte are whinging like fcuk because they wanted SPL status, no sanctions, no fines, no bans, no embargoes, no restrictions, and all their titles, cups, history, and 5-star logos left alone. They are the people after all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galabankie Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) See previous. If SFL rule 86 debars Rangers it debarred Annan. Not quite sure what is actually being argued, Annan became Associate members on July 5th 2008, we were then given immediate ground improvements prior to season starting, there were others that had to be achieved by the end of the four year probation period, at the AGM in May we were given full SFL Membership despite one outstanding item - removal of slope and levelling of pitch, considering we had already started the work to install a synthetic surface two weeks earlier the decision was easy to make. If we wind the clock back to 2008 we completed our application late May, we were visited by the SFL's working Party in June, they inspected our facilities, accounts etc, I would therefore suggest that we had registered our ground in the application process Edited July 20, 2012 by Galabankie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Not in SFL requirements. Adjudged by electing clubs. Not in SFL requirements. Entirely optional. NOT REQUIRED TO JOIN SFL, btw. 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. Tbf, it's not really 1%, fine wasn't regarding their Big Tax Case debts. They've theoretically 'til June 1st 2013 (my reading of SFL rule 86). Annan joined SFL after June 1st, afterall. If any. Edited July 20, 2012 by Bearwithme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supras Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 Some media types had a dig at us 'internet knuckledraggers' for apparently kicking a club when they were down, and for wanting nothing less than to see them 'do a Third Lanark' and die. Seems to me that those in charge of the entity formerly owned by Craig Whyte are whinging like fcuk because they wanted SPL status, no sanctions, no fines, no bans, no embargoes, no restrictions, and all their titles, cups, history, and 5-star logos left alone. They are the people after all. Journalists are routinely and correctly slaughtered on this thread. I've no gripe with them writing SEETHING articles about it. I still have fond memories on Craig Burleys breakdown on live TV in the St. Mirren Hamilton match. He was gutted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 25th July 2011: http://www.uktimes.c...d-levski-sofia/ 20th July 2012: http://www.rangers.c...article/2855575 Changes? Fatter!!!!!, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leepylee Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 There wouldn't need to be as that would just have happened as a matter of course. For defers there would have been no media and blazer battle to save the wretched dogs 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) See previous. If SFL rule 86 debars Rangers it debarred Annan. In that case rule 86.3 86.3 Each Club shall either own its own ground or be a tenant or occupier of its ground under a Lease or other formal Agreement in either case for an initial period of not less than five years. The club does not own the ground as far as I mind?????? Edit for Annan was I think to do with improvements which is allowed under the rule 86. Edited July 20, 2012 by wunfellaff 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Cheer up if have their history they are effectivly a phoenix 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. Edited for clarity- there are exceptions in company law to a phoenix situation but as the oldco are not a going concern, I don't think it applies to the newco. Can any company lawyers out there confirm? Indeed. Their continuing to use the name "Rangers" will cost them a hefty price. This has already been highlighted by Companies House via various Mainstream Media outlets, BBC, STV, SKY, numerous newspapers and by several Independent Investigative Journalists. Edited July 20, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 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.