stirlingshire_staggie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Anyone any idea how many Orcs will be heading to Brechin? Well, the number who bought the official allocation from Ibrox. There may be a few more who live near Brechin who'll buy home-support tickets. It's a 4000 sell out. Tell the good people of Brechin to lock there doors and hide untill it's all over. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 "@STVRaman: STV has learned former Hearts duo Craig Beattie and Ian Black are to train with Rangers this week - starting today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 name='Enrico Annoni' timestamp='1343123594' post='6461274']"@STVRaman: STV has learned former Hearts duo Craig Beattie and Ian Black are to train with Rangers this week - starting today 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not if read in context. Rule 68 is absolutely explicit in reference to "Members and Associate Members" the entire time it talks about distribution of the Capped Limit, then suddenly stops mentioning Associate Members at the exact point it starts talking about the Excess: It's really stretching credibility to believe that the timing of that change in wording is coincidental. You'll only give yourself a headache trying to find anything conclusive in the rulebooks amongst all the ambiguities and contradictions. They'll interpret them as they see fit. "Membership" can clearly include "Associate Membership" should they wish it to, and not if they don't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 1343124237[/url]' post='6461305']Anyone any idea how many Orcs will be heading to Brechin? Well, the number who bought the official allocation from Ibrox. There may be a few more who live near Brechin who'll buy home-support tickets. You'll be lucky if they even know where Brechin or Glebe Park are. Bear in mind that these are the sort of folk who started leaving a League Cup tie against Clyde (2-2) and had to be told by the tannoy guy to go back and sit down as the game would go to extra time and not a replay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 “@STVRaman: STV has learned former Hearts duo Craig Beattie and Ian Black are to train with Rangers this week - starting today http://t.co/20uKW6Cr” Apart from the lack of ambition from the 2 players, I think it shows how poor a manager McCoist is if he really thinks he needs these players to get out of Div 3 & 2 That actually makes me chuckle a bit, TBH. Stewart Gilmour was fucking raging that Hearts signed Beattie (we were apparently trying to bring him in ) whilst unable to pay their current players on time. I fear for his blood pressure should Beattie sign for the newco 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I would argue that people at large generally accept these things So people at large generally accept that Gretna 2008 are Gretna? That AFC Wimbledon won the FA Cup with Vinnie Jones? That Clydebank have always played junior football and that Airdrieonians had a bit of a temporary liquidity problem? Yes, back in the days when folk played football while still wearing their monocles these things happened all the time and nobody batted an eyelid. But in the modern age if a team is wound up and resurrected people are always going to remember that. Some folk on here seem absolutely determined to be as down about this whole affair as possible even after all that's happened. Fucking self-hating fucking Scots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 We can see that by the fact that TUPE applied (TUPE only applies where there has been a transfer of undertakings). Amazingly enough, you're jumping the gun yet again. It very much LOOKS to any impartial observer that TUPE will apply, but it hasn't yet. Charles Green has filed an objection to former Rangers players moving to other clubs, and the SFA has refused to release their registrations pending a hearing. Southampton have, we're told, actually paid a transfer fee in respect of one ot the players concerned to bypass the dispute. I have no idea why you're so astonishingly doggedly determined to treat things as done-and-dusted facts prematurely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Just that the 'joke' was "snale oil" not "snake oil" It's been a slow morning. Very slow, never noticed and went with my own joke, and the worst of it have already put the order for the new business cards to the printers - bugger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 You'll only give yourself a headache trying to find anything conclusive in the rulebooks amongst all the ambiguities and contradictions. They'll interpret them as they see fit. "Membership" can clearly include "Associate Membership" should they wish it to, and not if they don't. While it's obviously true that the authorities can, have and will ride roughshod over their own rules if they so choose, it doesn't alter the fact that the meaning and intent of Rule 68 as it stands is crystal clear - the Capped Limit is for distribution to all members, the Excess is for distribution to full members only. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Was just perusing RTC website and seen a post which stated Doncaster was looking for an 8 year deal with Sky/ESPN for SPL rights. Am I alone in thinking he is worried how long it is going to take Newco to reach the SPL? So much so that he is giving Newco 8 years to reach the big table? Surely it would be utter madness to sign a deal for that sort of duration...? In the course of almost a decade the markets could open up (e.g. with BT) and that competition could lead to improved offers. So people at large generally accept that Gretna 2008 are Gretna? That AFC Wimbledon won the FA Cup with Vinnie Jones? That Clydebank have always played junior football and that Airdrieonians had a bit of a temporary liquidity problem? If any of those were examples of the issue being debated, you might've had a point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Apologies if this has already been posted http://www.rangersme...club&Itemid=529 First comment below that story : ----- I feel you missed the boat somehow ranger could of joined blue square and in 3 years could of been in the championship which I believe to be a richer league than spl but then we would have reps from three nations then and it would benefit our english leagues with rangers in it it will take you 3 yrs to get in spl anyway I'm sure we would of welcome you. When did that paticiple of speech come into being? Bloody English can't even speak their own language properly. I lived in England for 5 years and actually had to go to my daughter's school on one occasion to complain to the Head, as her teacher had marked "could've" as incorrect, had scored it out, and had written "could of" in its place....... a FECKIN' teacher. Mind you, given her non-punctuation and other grammar, it's not surprising. Edited July 24, 2012 by Happy Buddie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) 68.4.3 Any excess of the surplus above the Capped Limit ("the Excess") shall be distributed on an incentive based ladder system by the Board allocating: 68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the First Division; 68.4.3.2 33% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Second Division; and 68.4.3.3 12% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Third Division. It's really stretching credibility to believe that the timing of that change in wording is coincidental. No its not stretching credibility. The context has completely changed in this section to describe constituent members of the divisions. You can infer whatever position suits you but the rules by definition can allow the word Member to describe an organisation that has joined the league (regardless of membership status) unless prohibited. If the rules stated something such as 68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members, excluding associate members, in the First Division; or 68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Full Member Clubs in the First Division; then you would have a case, otherwise it is ambiguous and at the discretion of the league. If we accept your logic then the Newco Rangers can negotiate their own TV deal as the rule that prevents them from doing so only mentions members this is rule 70.1: Members may enter into commercial arrangements or sponsorship agreements with third parties but must ensure that any such proposed arrangement or agreement does not and will not conflict with the commercial arrangements or sponsorship agreements contemplated or already negotiated by the Board on behalf of the League as contemplated in Rule 71 (Commercial Arrangements by the Board). Cannot have it both ways I am afraid. Edited July 24, 2012 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Legover managed to confused 'someday' with somebody'. Hey ho, we all make mistakes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 While it's obviously true that the authorities can, have and will ride roughshod over their own rules if they so choose, it doesn't alter the fact that the meaning and intent of Rule 68 as it stands is crystal clear - the Capped Limit is for distribution to all members, the Excess is for distribution to full members only. So, if they survive until money dishing out time, it will be up to one of the other 'members' to complain. I don't think it will come to that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Anyhoo, I've got a paying client in now so must dash. I'll try to find you a legal definition of undertaking later if you like. Given that your username is Pull My Strings, i'm intrigued as to what your paying client is paying for! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wings Over Scotland Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Full Member Clubs in the First Division; Och, don't be so silly. The Constitution doesn't refer to clubs as "Full Members" at any point anywhere in its 207 pages. What it does regularly do throughout its length is distinguish between "Members" and "Associate Members". Doing so right in the middle of a Rule is staggeringly obviously not an accident. You're also just factually wrong: Rule 68.4.2 refers to payments clubs based on league positions while talking about the Capped Limit, while Rule 68.4.3 separates them on the same basis in reference to the Excess, so the change in wording is nothing to do with that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Legover managed to confused 'someday' with somebody'. Hey ho, we all make mistakes. They're pronounced the same in the Lanarkshire area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pull My Strings Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Given that your username is Pull My Strings, i'm intrigued as to what your paying client is paying for! Happy endings cost extra. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Amazingly enough, you're jumping the gun yet again. It very much LOOKS to any impartial observer that TUPE will apply, but it hasn't yet. Charles Green has filed an objection to former Rangers players moving to other clubs, and the SFA has refused to release their registrations pending a hearing. Southampton have, we're told, actually paid a transfer fee in respect of one ot the players concerned to bypass the dispute. I have no idea why you're so astonishingly doggedly determined to treat things as done-and-dusted facts prematurely. I find that a very strange post. You're implying that the SFA will have some locus in deciding if TUPE will apply. They don't, neither will UEFA. 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.