pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Presumably Duff and Phelps have been looking for repayment of those 'loans' to help the creditors then? Seems an easy yes/no question that holes the Rangers' case below the waterline. The money was just 'resting' in their account, honest guv'. there must be a whopping great big black hole in the accounts where the EBT cash once sat. if they were loans given to players there must be contracts showing repayment terms, hhhhhmmmmmmm, i wonder why dumb n dumber haven,t came accross this yet or will this all com out with the tax case. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staggy4life Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Will we now be voting instead of Dunfermline then by the time this meeting comes around? Wonder what our stance on this would be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 If an application is made before 30th may the explicitly say they will open it up to all the clubs. "Open it up", yes... it says the Board will call together the clubs, hear what they have to say - presumably with an indicative poll of some kind - and it'll be dealt with by the Board. Surely you must admit this is better then Doncaster and 3 clubs voting on this. Not necessarily, for those reasons I detailed in the post you replied to. It's worse than the Board deciding themselves, or the clubs deciding themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Will we now be voting instead of Dunfermline then by the time this meeting comes around? Wonder what our stance on this would be. The fact we have survived for 83 years with only 2 competitive games against Rangers should be proof that we certainly don't need Rangers to survive. I'm sure Roy will vote to keep them in the league though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sting777 Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Will we now be voting instead of Dunfermline then by the time this meeting comes around? Wonder what our stance on this would be. Might be wrong but did McGregor not pay off at least one of the Rankgers creditors, out of his own pocket, recently 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandmagyar Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Might be wrong but did McGregor not pay off at least one of the Rankgers creditors, out of his own pocket, recently ALL RA PEEPUL UP HERE MATE! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrismcarab Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 So... and perhaps think about this carefully before answering... you're saying the 2 scenarios were the same? No, I'm highlighting the different scenarios that each side can refer to as 'precedence', something I'm sure any legal representation would also.....too many options on both sides if we drill down to the nitty gritty, be that financial or football. This has to be treated as a 'special case' remember... I've made my personal position pretty clear in my previous posts. Rangers cheated and should be punished not only by association rules, but by the laws of the land, how that plays out when they intertwine? Thats what the whole saga is faltering on. And that's not even taking into account the moral/commercial aspects ongoing. All I'm saying is 'if' there were legal challenges to any decision be that SFA/SPL, for whatever reason, each side can cite precedence in some respect, however tenuous the link. Happy to accept any other point of view, thats why we're here surely? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotWeissEssen Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 "Open it up", yes... it says the Board will call together the clubs, hear what they have to say - presumably with an indicative poll of some kind - and it'll be dealt with by the Board. Not necessarily, for those reasons I detailed in the post you replied to. It's worse than the Board deciding themselves, or the clubs deciding themselves. You admit the clubs will decide though. So all anger and pressure if on the clubs not Doncaster. Also once the new rule is put in its in the hands of the clubs. Whatever way you look at each club will now have a vote and the pressure can applied to each club on how they vote or how they will vote. The clubs have decided on this and by the next meeting it will be taken out of the boards hands. If the board decided on itself two clubs could vote against it and two people not associated with any club could vote yes. I cant see any reason why this worse. If they vote before the next meeting they will still be voting. I would imagine every club will now be asked by the press how they will vote. Remember this is action taken by the clubs Doncaster was quite happy to have the power and seemed to enjoy having it. In Doncaster's mind a new co is the same as CVA so thank f**k he does not have a vote is what I say. Every single phone in show on Scottish football keeps going on about the board having the vote this is being removed at the soonest possible moment. Do you not remember how delighted Tranyor/young and the rest were delighted when they could tell people that it did not matter as the 'board will decide' A newco was always going to voted in by the board now every club has a vote no matter what it makes it much more interesting. For example Rod Petrie could claim he does not agree with the board decision by what could he do ? Now that get out clause is gone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) The fact we have survived for 83 years with only 2 competitive games against Rangers should be proof that we certainly don't need Rangers to survive. I'm sure Roy will vote to keep them in the league though. Eighty-fucking-three years to get to the SPL, what took ye? We did it in nine ten Edited May 7, 2012 by stonedsailor -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 UEFA will defer to the national association. Correct. They've already said that they are comfortable with the Scottish authorities dealing with the Rangers situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarreZ Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I cant see how it can be anything other than an 11-1 majority needed given the current voting rules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pansypotterthedirtyrotter Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 I cant see how it can be anything other than an 11-1 majority needed given the current voting rules. doncaster just said on radio it will be 8-4 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
staggy4life Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Eighty-fucking-three years to get to the SPL, what took ye? We did it in nine ten Buzzing for playing against Brora next season. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Much as I would love to see Bill Miller's bid collapse in a stream of bad publicity linking him to Timothy McVeigh, Gadaffi and/or orgies with Tommy Sheridan and Strauss-Kahn, the whole Ron Paul thing is a damp squib without more evidence. The nasty racist stuff people are linking to come fom Paul's newsletter decades ago when the libertarian movement was trying to overcome its electoral relevance and hit on fairly blatant pandering to racist paranoids. The New Republic magazine, which broke the story, concluded the pieces were not written by Paul and doubted they reflected his beliefs even at the time. Paul rightly got a kicking for the association and it became one of the thousand reasons why no sane person wants him to be nominated by a major party but it's a stretch to say Ron Paul in 2012, lt alone somebody ho gave money to him in the last electoral cycle, believes in those quotes. The interesting thing to be drawn from this for Rangers is Bill Miller could have backed any number of far right evangelical Christian theocrat candidates (Hukabee, Bachman, etc.) who briefly looked viable or staid business friendly establishment candidates (McCain, Romney) and instead chose a batshit crazy Ayn Rand ideologue. Given that the core principles of Paultards are fiscal rectitude as an aim in itself, capitalist creative destruction and a secular approach to moral questions I'm thinking if this travesty goes through the crab flute people are going to be in for quite a shock. Just to be clear, I think Ron Paul supporters should be banned fom the Internet and I despise the man, but he's neither KKK or UVF. Ron Paul is a state's rights conservative and his policy platform and voting record both indicate that nicely. It's not especially important whether or not he personally penned those newsletters. What's important is that the usual themes - of other-ing, of an immediate moral/financial collapse, of the right (duty?) of the strong to discriminate - still inform his policy decisions today. I say this as a former Paul supporter, by the way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 Presumably Duff and Phelps have been looking for repayment of those 'loans' to help the creditors then? Seems an easy yes/no question that holes the Rangers' case below the waterline. The money was just 'resting' in their account, honest guv'. Not quite as simple. If it is a 'loan' over 5 years of age the players can tell them to gtf. As someone who is bang on 5 years non acknowledgement of a £25 grand RBS loan I know this -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tadénator Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) doncaster just said on radio it will be 8-4 Unreal. How can the rules be changed this blatantly and at such short notice just to suit Rangers? Edited May 7, 2012 by Tadénator 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 doncaster just said on radio it will be 8-4 There's a surprise 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampy Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 There's a surprise Presumably there'll be some kind of discretionary clause wherein it can be decided that some of the four had their fingers crossed behind their back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 that doncaster is slipery as f**k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted May 7, 2012 Share Posted May 7, 2012 doncaster just said on radio it will be 8-4 Is that 8-4 in favour of allowing them in or 8-4 against? Surely all major decisions should be 11-1 as set out in their rules? And the assumption must be that oldco are to get a vote on whether newco get the share transfered to them, an obvious conflict of interests, should the system not be 7-4 or 11-0 in favour? 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.