Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[calum_gers]

Ffs, can we get back to the 62% debate?

Ok, have you pished 62% of yer breeks or are 62% still to be pished?

[hellbhoy]

Ffs, can we get back to the 62% debate?

Yer right I've made my point.

Is 62% nearly 2/3rds ?

[The_Kincardine]

Now your turn Kinkunty, do describe how a knock out fixture can be a league fixture if the knock out fixtures do not affect the league in any way, shape or form after the mandatory league fixtures have been fulfilled ?

A Charles duly delivered for the most creative use of my name yet. Also the 'roolz' thing is a bit of a smokestream*.

The big drama here is football fans insisting that fellow fans should pay more to go and watch their** team.

* There is a dispute about my use of this word.

** Many diddies prefer the casual 'there'.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Sick of this stupid debate.

How can any club sell an ST in the summer to cover a playoff you may or may not be in?

Don't be so fucking stupid.

If FFC said our ST for 2015/16 was to cover 21 home

games and not 18, their would be anarchy.

It would be much the same at any club.

Get over it.

Given that you can buy a season ticket for several clubs who don't actually know whether they're in the Premiership or Championship next season and hence whether they've got 18 or 19 regular season games it wouldn't seem that crazy.

Rangers however are claiming that the playoffs aren't actually covered by the season ticket as that would mean that they'd have received money for them and the league would be due a cut. In this respect they agree with Hellbhoy

Rangers also seem to be claiming the exact opposite and are saying it's right that season ticket holders should see the "whole season" including the playoffs. In this respect they're agreeing with The Kincardine.

As a general rule, if you ever find yourself agreeing with both Kincardine and Hellbhoy but not with yourself it's pretty much certain you've fucked up somehow.

[The_Kincardine]

As a general rule, if you ever find yourself agreeing with both Kincardine and Hellbhoy but not with yourself it's pretty much certain you've fucked up somehow.

f**k right off, Toppy. Most days I seldom agree with myself.

[hellbhoy]

A Charles duly delivered for the most creative use of my name yet. Also the 'roolz' thing is a bit of a smokestream*.

The big drama here is football fans insisting that fellow fans should pay more to go and watch their** team.

* There is a dispute about my use of this word.

** Many diddies prefer the casual 'there'.

The fans paid for an ST to watch 18 home games did they not ?, it'd be daylight robbery to the fans if they charged up front for 3 possible play off ties when they bought their ST and their club didn't even make the play off's.

One sane poster on Ragers Medjia posted that the fans thought nothing at first about paying for play off fixtures until the board decided to moan about it threatening to allow ST holders in for free and now all the Rangers fans who didn't bat an eyelid about it are now up in arms about it feeling they are being robbed etc.

One gripe I do have is the cut from the gates, it's way too big a cut TBH.

[The_Kincardine]

The fans paid for an ST to watch 18 home games did they not ?, it'd be daylight robbery to the fans if they charged up front for 3 possible play off ties when they bought their ST and their club didn't even make the play off's.

One sane poster on Ragers Medjia posted that the fans thought nothing at first about paying for play off fixtures until the board decided to moan about it threatening to allow ST holders in for free and now all the Rangers fans who didn't bat an eyelid about it are now up in arms about it feeling they are being robbed etc.

One gripe I do have is the cut from the gates, it's way too big a cut TBH.

Cool and factual reasonableness from The QC as always. I am pleased that you're joining the majority who see that it should be a club decision regarding pricing for the play-offs.

[hellbhoy]

Cool and factual reasonableness from The QC as always. I am pleased that you're joining the majority who see that it should be a club decision regarding pricing for the play-offs.

How did you manage to read that from my post ?, although I did mention the size of the cut from the gate receipts was a bit excessive. I never did mention the pricing !

[pozbaird]

BT Sports have sponsored the play off's for the Championship ties, no need to remove the sleeve patches as it's still an SPFL competition.

Surely BT Sport, as an existing SPFL broadcast partner are not new sponsors of the playoff matches, they do however have a deal to broadcast them?

You are saying these playoff fixtures are a new competition, correct? The league is over and the final league placings are fixed in the history books, correct?

So, as you agree the playoff fixtures are held under the auspices of the SPFL, and they decide promotion places to and from SPFL divisions, thus meaning the league season most certainly is NOT over... how on earth are these games not league fixtures?

Back to the sponsorship. I might have missed it, but are these the Petrofac Training Playoff Tourney 2015? The Johnnie Walker Playoffs?

Edited May 6, 2015 by pozbaird

[Monkey Tennis]

Once the costs of staging the games is covered, I'd be perfectly happy for the clubs to hand over the lot.

These fixtures shouldn't be about the participating sides making money. Parachute payments should not exist.

[akredz]

.........

As a general rule, if you ever find yourself agreeing with both Kincardine and Hellbhoy but not with yourself it's pretty much certain you've fucked up somehow.

Outstanding.

[Gaz FFC]

Given that you can buy a season ticket for several clubs who don't actually know whether they're in the Premiership or Championship next season and hence whether they've got 18 or 19 regular season games it wouldn't seem that crazy.

These are the clubs that are showing the early signs of being financially fucked.

So fucked they're willing to take a gamble on red or black.

[hellbhoy]

Surely BT Sport, as an existing SPFL broadcast partner are not new sponsors of the playoff matches, they do however have a deal to broadcast them?

You are saying these playoff fixtures are a new competition, correct? The league is over and the final league placings are fixed in the history books, correct?

So, as you agree the playoff fixtures are held under the auspices of the SPFL, and they decide promotion places to and from SPFL divisions, thus meaning the league season most certainly is NOT over... how on earth are these games not league fixtures?

Back to the sponsorship. I might have missed it, but are these the Petrofac Training Playoff Tourney 2015? The Johnnie Walker Playoffs?

Po-tae-toe or po-tah-toh is what we are doing here Poz. At points we are both correct and other times there is a differing of opinion.

Have a look at the BBC website under "live scores" the lower league play off's are categorised as "Scottish League One" & "Scottish Championship". In the League One results there are 3 League Two clubs ?, two of these clubs at least won't be playing in League One next season and never played a single League One league fixture this season. So how can they be playing League One fixtures ?

My position is that the leagues have already played their quota of competitive league fixtures and the Championship league itself has finished and has now changed into another type of league fixture that is in a knock out format that does not affect their league standing, goals scored for and against and so on.

So they are league fixtures, but they aren't division fixtures that affect the clubs table standings so therefore cannot be part of the league campaign of 36 games if you get my reasoning.

[hellbhoy]

Once the costs of staging the games is covered, I'd be perfectly happy for the clubs to hand over the lot. These fixtures shouldn't be about the participating sides making money. Parachute payments should not exist.

It's like giving the relegated club a bonus for failing ffs. The money they earned from their final league placing in the Premiership should be enough to help them readjust in the lower division for the coming season IMO.

It could be seen as financial doping so the other clubs in the lower division are already at a disadvantage with spending power, nice idea but hardly practical under the current financial climate the game is in. The money should come from the main sponsorship deals the SPFL penned for the upcoming season and the money the clubs make from the play off's should ideally help them in the next campaign as a bonus for reaching the play off's.

[pozbaird]

Po-tae-toe or po-tah-toh is what we are doing here Poz. At points we are both correct and other times there is a differing of opinion.

Have a look at the BBC website under "live scores" the lower league play off's are categorised as "Scottish League One" & "Scottish Championship". In the League One results there are 3 League Two clubs ?, two of these clubs at least won't be playing in League One next season and never played a single League One league fixture this season. So how can they be playing League One fixtures ?

My position is that the leagues have already played their quota of competitive league fixtures and the Championship league itself has finished and has now changed into another type of league fixture that is in a knock out format that does not affect their league standing, goals scored for and against and so on.

So they are league fixtures, but they aren't division fixtures that affect the clubs table standings so therefore cannot be part of the league campaign of 36 games if you get my reasoning.

Fair enough.... but can you show me where I said 62% voted for..... Arghhhhh!

[hellbhoy]

Fair enough.... but can you show me where I said 62% voted for..... Arghhhhh!

See if this works Poz ?

When the real Rangers went bust and after all the votes cast in the old SFL association to bitch slap the cloned version into the old Third division in a count back showed that !, out of all the 42 senior clubs around 62% of all clubs or just less than 2/3rds actually voted to kick the B'stard of an abomination down to the lowest division by virtue of an SFL vote. I'm sort of sure that some clubs voted to let them into the old First Division and hence why the magic number of 62% of all the votes cast including the old SPL vote as a sum total of all votes to allow them into any league.

So brings us around in a full circle for the benefit of cnuty No8, 62% or just under 2/3rds of all senior clubs voted NO to allow his new club into the Old 1st Division.

I'm 62% sure on this although being just less than 2/3rds sure looks a better option here.

[No8.]

Aw this just gets worse for you the more you press on this subject, you are having a fucking nightmare here and are all over the place like a headless chicken.

So you have gone from proclaiming 2/3rds voted NO to voted YES ???, if that was the case then Scotland would be an independent nation.

This is the last I'm pressing on this as other posters are getting fed up of you making a cnut out of yourself. I did post where you posted 62% so deal with it you demented fuckwit.

The last time you are mentioning it as you fucked up...simpleton.

I don't give a f**k about other posters getting bored....either quote where I said '62% voted No' or apologise. It shouldn't be too difficult simpleton.

You never quoted it as I specifically never said it. What I said was only just over 1/3rd of the electorate voted yes. 2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote Yes. Neither of these statements are even remotely close to saying '62% voted No' ... You know I actually think you are so thick you can't even see where you fucked up.

[akredz]

Where's Mr X with the "get this pish 62% argument out of here" irrelevancy banhammer when you need him?

[Paramour]

The last time you are mentioning it as you fucked up...simpleton.

I don't give a f**k about other posters getting bored....either quote where I said '62% voted No' or apologise. It shouldn't be too difficult simpleton.

You never quoted it as I specifically never said it. What I said was only just over 1/3rd of the electorate voted yes. 2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote Yes. Neither of these statements are even remotely close to saying '62% voted No' ... You know I actually think you are so thick you can't even see where you fucked up.

^ ^ ^ Definitely not bovvered.

[Sting777]

The last time you are mentioning it as you fucked up...simpleton.

I don't give a f**k about other posters getting bored....either quote where I said '62% voted No' or apologise. It shouldn't be too difficult simpleton.

You never quoted it as I specifically never said it. What I said was only just over 1/3rd of the electorate voted yes. 2/3rds of the electorate didn't vote Yes. Neither of these statements are even remotely close to saying '62% voted No' ... You know I actually think you are so thick you can't even see where you fucked up.

No 2 is losing the plot....lol