youngsy Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Because Rangers never had the criteria to be granted a membership and they still only have an associate membership not a full one Pish,as bennett said,try again. My link Get used to it,same club.onwards and upwards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 If you are not willing to accept the SFA rules then there is simply no point in debating, those are the rules. SFA 'rules' Tedi..................want to debate what ''SFA rules''the dead club broached? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 If you are not willing to accept the SFA rules then there is simply no point in debating, those are the rules. If the SFA don't play by their own rules, then why should I? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Correct it is a full membership, I was clearly speaking about the SFA membership, Nolly is simply wrong on this point. And 'Rangers' had a full SFA membership last year.............'The Rangers' have a full membership this year. Took a transfer. Different club. The SFA licence 'clubs' not 'Companies'.......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 You dont have to, I never said you should. But debating with someone who will not accept the rules is pointless, those are the rules Billy Dodds said he had a dual contract given to him by the dead club. That ain't in the SFA rules Tedi.......... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 If someone wants to tell me that my club began in 1913 (circa?) then I'm fine with that. I certainly do not want to tell you anything but the analogy with Hibs is apt. Most Hibs fans track their history to when they were founded and gloss over their year's break. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Cant be a new club, Rangers did not have to apply nor were they GRANTED an SFA memebership as all new clubs must be. Same club We are pleased to confirm tht agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the TRANSFER of Scottish FA membership between Rangers F.C (in administration),and Sevco Scotland Ltd,who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club Ltd You notice they speak about Sevco, the owners They had to apply whereas it be for a 'granting' or a 'transference' Same as they had to apply for admission to the SPL (rejected) + SFL (conditional admission). A member club of the SPL that had not been relegated that had to apply for anything Tedi, talk to us about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 You dont have to, I never said you should. But debating with someone who will not accept the rules is pointless, those are the rules In the space of a few posts you make the point that one rule proves that something is so because you can't break them. Then another rule should be flexible in the interests of common sense. You can't have it both ways. Will you accept the rules if Rangers are found guilty of dual contracts and the punitive measures that come with them. I.e. Title stripping and loss of honours? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 And you say I deflect? Did he? These things get decided by the tribunal and the inevitable appeal body. Deflect? Moi? Dodds admitted on Air as you well know that he was to recieve payment through the EBT that was contractual. This was NOT in the registered contract so even a dumbass can see if it was contracual it means 2 contracts................ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 SPL memberships cannot be transferred between companies, SPL do not confer membership on 'companies' Tedi..................... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 I certainly do not want to tell you anything but the analogy with Hibs is apt. Most Hibs fans track their history to when they were founded and gloss over their year's break. They probably do, mostly I would assume due to being completely ignorant of it. I didn't know much about it until recently. I use the date on the badge as it's all I've ever known. I don't expect Rangers fans to do otherwise. Anyway, "analogy"? - now I've got this granny................;-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 The SFA have bent over every way possible over the years to ensure the OF is milked for all it's worth, so it's no surprise that they 'granted' or 'transfered' any membership, they also allowed a vote for sevco to play in the SPL & then another one to play in the SPL1, both votes were an absolute joke, chuckie should've been handed an application form & told to get to the back of the queue. But no..they bent the rules, they allowed them in, they gave them a transfer ban, but only after they signed the players they wanted. Scottish football is corrupt towards sellic & sevco, that's a fact, I think most fans trust the SFA as must as we'd trust jimmy savile with our weans. Luckily most fans know the truth, rangers died, a new club was formed. So can we please stop quoting the SFA's licensing dept as the oracle of truth for what rangers/sevco are or are not ? -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Of course they do They are made up of 'clubs' Tedi.......not 'companies..... The SPL Company has 12 shareholders who are made up of representatives from member clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shades75 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 You have made it clear that under certain circumstances you may choose not to accept the SFA rules, for me this is the end of the debate, those are the rules. I am on record as saying that I will accept the findings and punishments (if any) of the tribunal and subsequant appeal body. I've never made it clear that under certain circumstances..........etc...etc.... I'm quite baffled as to how you arrive at that conclusion, or what relevance it has. That's the end of the debate is it? Fair enough, but allow me to pop my head above the parapet when you use the same premise to argue with another poster on the subject. That's all I did here. I think your argument is flimsy and contradictory so allow me to say so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 So in fact he did not, this is simply your interpretation and you tried to put words in his mouth. I will wait for the tribunal and appeal body, we have been down this Rangers are 100% guilty route before and we all know how that turned out. Nope........... he had one contract that was registered. He had a lot of extra money paid through the EBT that he said live on the beeb was Contractual. If it ain;t in the contract registered that means a second contract 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 The SFA have bent over every way possible over the years to ensure the OF is milked for all it's worth, so it's no surprise that they 'granted' or 'transfered' any membership, they also allowed a vote for sevco to play in the SPL & then another one to play in the SPL1, both votes were an absolute joke, chuckie should've been handed an application form & told to get to the back of the queue. Yet another meaningless drunk rant from you. I'll give £100 to charity if you can actually explain what SPL1 is and how the voting went. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik's tongue Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 and running every club is a company Like I said before, I hope Celtic spend £150 million in January then in an effort to win the CL. Liquidation obviously doesn't exist any more so it won't matter a jot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearwithme Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Like I said before, I hope Celtic spend £150 million in January then in an effort to win the CL. Liquidation obviously doesn't exist any more so it won't matter a jot. Yep. we haven't had any hassle at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFT 123 Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 £150M will not buy you the CL, Messi alone would cost you £250M and £30M+ a year wages, in fact this was turned down. Football at this level is a truly fucked up place. Well they could always bribe UEFA... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kincardine Posted December 27, 2012 Share Posted December 27, 2012 Like I said before, I hope Celtic spend £150 million in January then in an effort to win the CL. Is that how much Wanyama's new contract is priced at these days? 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.