Charles Green's share issue

[Double Jack D]

You're looking for an argument,aren't you. I'm not going there on that but did you know that since Rangers were founded in 1872 we have won 224 trophies,or next will be our 225th, we've been in four Europen finals,winning one, a remarkable record, Henrik. Did you also know Henrik, that Rangers also have the biggest representation of players for Scotland, Henrik. Remarkable record.

Which Rangers are you taking about?

[youngsy]

Yes, i think it's correct to concentrate on that period as thats the period of the "modern era" if you like, the period of a "generation". the period of murray's tenure onwards, the period of tv taking control of the scottish game. in the modern era, the only way rangers could compete with celtic was via EBT tax dodges and running up a debt which saw them go into liquidation.

the game has changed so much since the 1950-mid80's that there is no point discussing it with relevance to rangers return to the top flight.

but thanks for the brief history of scottish football, it was appreciated... even if it was used to ignore any of the points i raised, such as:

the only way Rangers were able to compete with celtic in the modern era was using EBT's, regardless of their legality, that allowed them to increase their playing budget, therefore allowed them to stay close to celtic. Whilst doing this, they were also running up a huge debt, a debt that saw the "company" liquidated. debt to small businesss that if rangers had paid, would have reduced the playing budget.

and all this time, celtic were breaking even, sometimes running a profit!

over the last 15 to 20 years if Rangers had run at break even, paid off the debts when the bill came in and didn't use a tax dodge.... could they have even come close to celtic... adversly if celtic had ran at a giant loss at the same level as rangers, how many more players could celtic have brought in, that would have allowed them to run away from rangers.

i'm not saying that if rangers return, that they will be a mid table team, the income they generate from attendances should see them as the second place team. but they will be the second place team, and thats as good as it can get... i repeat, the only way you competed in a top two, previously, was running up debt and using a tax dodge.

how can any sensible rangers fan (of which you are one) realistically look at what has happenned over the last 20 years, the tricks used to compete with celtic, and say with a straight face, that without doing all these under hand things.... you will still compete with celtic. how can that be financially possible?

You've went from the EBT period,which was from 2001 until 2010 to a twenty year period. Rangers were never looked at as regards EBTs during Smiths first tenure or at any other time except the past decade. As for looking only at the modern period,why?

Scottish football was ongoing well before the period you describe and both clubs were still dominant. I watched the 60s onward so as far as i'm concerned the history of Scottish football should be looked at in it's full context,you can't ignore the history of the game and clubs to suit an argument. You seem to be concentrating on the money aspect over a relatively short period instead of giving credence to the full background to both clubs dominance over a full course of time.

[youngsy]

So are you just joking that the club and company are different now?

Surely 225 is not just a remarkable record, it must be a world record!

It may well be a world record,i'll leave that to others to peruse. As for club continuity,as long as the Annals of Scottish football record the timeline from 1872 ongoing then that is good enough for me. Did i say that our next trophy will be the clubs 225th since founding in 1872.

[dave.j]

You've went from the EBT period,which was from 2001 until 2010 to a twenty year period. Rangers were never looked at as regards EBTs during Smiths first tenure or at any other time except the past decade. As for looking only at the modern period,why?

Scottish football was ongoing well before the period you describe and both clubs were still dominant. I watched the 60s onward so as far as i'm concerned the history of Scottish football should be looked at in it's full context,you can't ignore the history of the game and clubs to suit an argument. You seem to be concentrating on the money aspect over a relatively short period instead of giving credence to the full background to both clubs dominance over a full course of time.

No, my post said 15-20 years, did it not?

over the last 15 to 20 years if Rangers had run at break even, paid off the debts when the bill came in and didn't use a tax dodge.... could they have even come close to celtic...

its ok, i understand. You are unwilling to address that in the modern era, the only way rangers can compete with their rivals, is to ignore their debts and use a dodgy tax scheme. history proves that.

and yet you still seem to believe (hope) that on their return to the top flight, without using these tactics, that you will, like some sort of miracle, be able to compete with your rivals.

Listen, you don't need to bother replying, Youngsy. i understand reality is a tough bugger to accept, but hey, accept it now, and anything in the future would be a bonus!

[bennett]

If the SPL is so competitive, viable and booming then can someone explain why they are trying to rush through reconstruction for next season?

[dave.j]

If the SPL is so competitive, viable and booming then can someone explain why they are trying to rush through reconstruction for next season?

To piss off Rangers and keep them in the bottom tier of Scottish Football, most probably.

[bennett]

The SPL chairmen have even stopped listening to their fans over fans, reconstruction has to come and fast or ........

Strange considering how competitive, booming and viable the league is, why only the other night Jum Spence was regaling listeners with tales of how booming the SPL was.

[youngsy]

Yes, i think it's correct to concentrate on that period as thats the period of the "modern era" if you like, the period of a "generation". the period of murray's tenure onwards, the period of tv taking control of the scottish game. in the modern era, the only way rangers could compete with celtic was via EBT tax dodges and running up a debt which saw them go into liquidation.

the game has changed so much since the 1950-mid80's that there is no point discussing it with relevance to rangers return to the top flight.

but thanks for the brief history of scottish football, it was appreciated... even if it was used to ignore any of the points i raised, such as:

the only way Rangers were able to compete with celtic in the modern era was using EBT's, regardless of their legality, that allowed them to increase their playing budget, therefore allowed them to stay close to celtic. Whilst doing this, they were also running up a huge debt, a debt that saw the "company" liquidated. debt to small businesss that if rangers had paid, would have reduced the playing budget.

and all this time, celtic were breaking even, sometimes running a profit!

over the last 15 to 20 years if Rangers had run at break even, paid off the debts when the bill came in and didn't use a tax dodge.... could they have even come close to celtic... adversly if celtic had ran at a giant loss at the same level as rangers, how many more players could celtic have brought in, that would have allowed them to run away from rangers.

i'm not saying that if rangers return, that they will be a mid table team, the income they generate from attendances should see them as the second place team. but they will be the second place team, and thats as good as it can get... i repeat, the only way you competed in a top two, previously, was running up debt and using a tax dodge.

how can any sensible rangers fan (of which you are one) realistically look at what has happenned over the last 20 years the tricks used to compete with celtic, and say with a straight face, that without doing all these under hand things.... you will still compete with celtic. how can that be financially possible?

There you are,Dave. That period brings in season 1992/93 onwards. That was in the middle of the 9 in a row years,a period that had nothing to do with EBTs. This might be a generational thing but when i discuss the history of Scottish football i try and bring in the eras' that i watched the game going forward.

In the respect of discussing both clubs domination then i have to say that the domination didn't start 20 years ago,it is enshrined in the history of Scottish football and in the last 50 years only four clubs,outwith the Glasgow clubs, have won the title,only one of which retained it.

Which in my opinion makes the SPL, or whatever the top league is known as at any particular time, uncompetitive in a relevant title challenge when either Glasgow club is not competing against the other 99% of the time. To have a relevant and credible league,Scottish football needs both clubs competing with each other,fans outwith the two clubs might not agree,or wish to agree but the evidence going on the history of the game gives a truer reflection of the game.

[youngsy]

To piss off Rangers and keep them in the bottom tier of Scottish Football, most probably.

It may piss off Green as he will be looking to justify ST sales playing the same teams as this season and in effect renders this season redundant as regards progressing through the divisions but the minimum timescale for getting back to the top division remains the same.

[~~~]

It may piss off Green as he will be looking to justify ST sales playing the same teams as this season and in effect renders this season redundant as regards progressing through the divisions but the minimum timescale for getting back to the top division remains the same.

Green is Rangers at this moment. You can't seperate his actions or words from the club

[itzdrk]

If the SPL is so competitive, viable and booming then can someone explain why they are trying to rush through reconstruction for next season?

because they are all peter lawell's puppets of coruse

[dave.j]

There you are,Dave. That period brings in season 1992/93 onwards. That was in the middle of the 9 in a row years,a period that had nothing to do with EBTs. This might be a generational thing but when i discuss the history of Scottish football i try and bring in the eras' that i watched the game going forward.

In the respect of discussing both clubs domination then i have to say that the domination didn't start 20 years ago,it is enshrined in the history of Scottish football and in the last 50 years only four clubs,outwith the Glasgow clubs, have won the title,only one of which retained it.

Which in my opinion makes the SPL, or whatever the top league is known as at any particular time, uncompetitive in a relevant title challenge when either Glasgow club is not competing against the other 99% of the time. To have a relevant and credible league,Scottish football needs both clubs competing with each other,fans outwith the two clubs might not agree,or wish to agree but the evidence going on the history of the game gives a truer reflection of the game.

still doesn't answer how you propose to compete with a team, when recent history shows the only way you could do, was via financial doping and refusal to pay your bills, to allow your teams wage budget to increase.

lets be honest.... who gives a fck about history.... looking ahead if rangers are run properly, your team cannot compete with celtic for wages, simples.

[Bookies Love Me]

Been reading through this and can't believe that some rangers supporters are still maintaining that the SPL is sh*te without them in as competition.

In all sincerity, do you think if you were allowed to stay in the SPL your team wouldn't be anywhere else except nailed to the bottom of the league just waiting for the season to end so that you could get relegated to start afresh?

Would your fans cough up the SPL prices to watch the dross your manager is fielding at the moment? Don't say you would have better players because you just couldn't afford anything better at the moment. Last seasons team were taking wage cuts, that could not go on for long.

Please answer with something constuctive because I would like to gauge the true feeling of the rangers support.

[lithgierose]

Been reading through this and can't believe that some rangers supporters are still maintaining that the SPL is sh*te without them in as competition.

In all sincerity, do you think if you were allowed to stay in the SPL your team wouldn't be anywhere else except nailed to the bottom of the league just waiting for the season to end so that you could get relegated to start afresh?

Would your fans cough up the SPL prices to watch the dross your manager is fielding at the moment? Don't say you would have better players because you just couldn't afford anything better at the moment. Last seasons team were taking wage cuts, that could not go on for long.

Please answer with something constuctive because I would like to gauge the true feeling of the rangers support.

best of luck with that

[bennett]

Been reading through this and can't believe that some rangers supporters are still maintaining that the SPL is sh*te without them in as competition.

In all sincerity, do you think if you were allowed to stay in the SPL your team wouldn't be anywhere else except nailed to the bottom of the league just waiting for the season to end so that you could get relegated to start afresh?

Would your fans cough up the SPL prices to watch the dross your manager is fielding at the moment? Don't say you would have better players because you just couldn't afford anything better at the moment. Last seasons team were taking wage cuts, that could not go on for long.

Please answer with something constuctive because I would like to gauge the true feeling of the rangers support.

It's been shite for years to be fair, a 2 horse race is now a 1 horse stroll

If we'd still been in the integrity league we'd have probably had a slightly better standard of players, some players who left may have stayed and McCoist would probably not be manager.

I would have paid SPL prices to watch the team in the SPL and as i said earlier in those circumstances i doubt Mccoist would be there. With SPL prices ebing paid there would be more money available, you never thought through properly did you?

Parts of this post are speculative on my part so don't ask for proof as it's all what if's ....

[youngsy]

Been reading through this and can't believe that some rangers supporters are still maintaining that the SPL is sh*te without them in as competition.

In all sincerity, do you think if you were allowed to stay in the SPL your team wouldn't be anywhere else except nailed to the bottom of the league just waiting for the season to end so that you could get relegated to start afresh?

Would your fans cough up the SPL prices to watch the dross your manager is fielding at the moment? Don't say you would have better players because you just couldn't afford anything better at the moment. Last seasons team were taking wage cuts, that could not go on for long.

Please answer with something constuctive because I would like to gauge the true feeling of the rangers support.

As bennett has said it's likely that some of the players that left,perhaps most of them would still have been at the club. Naismith,McGregor,Davis and Aluko may well have stayed,perhaps others too. You're posting this under the scenario of the club losing the aforementioned players and operating with the current squad only. Neither of which you have any idea what players would have been at the club so therefore your question is hypothetical. And i'll say again,when you have only one team that is capable of winning a league title then that is not a competitive league campaign. So here's a question for you; where is the challenge to Celtic to win this seasons' SPL Championship. Which team is giving a relevant challenge to winning the title.

[dave.j]

As bennett has said it's likely that some of the players that left,perhaps most of them would still have been at the club. Naismith,McGregor,Davis and Aluko may well have stayed,perhaps others too. You're posting this under the scenario of the club losing the aforementioned players and operating with the current squad only. Neither of which you have any idea what players would have been at the club so therefore your question is hypothetical. And i'll say again,when you have only one team that is capable of winning a league title then that is not a competitive league campaign. So here's a question for you; where is the challenge to Celtic to win this seasons' SPL Championship. Which team is giving a relevant challenge to winning the title.

don't know how likely, did the majority of players not leave in june, 2 weeks before the SPL vote?

[dave.j]

In the year prior to Whyte taking over did Rangers actually mange to reduce there debt by something like £7M -£9M while not operating EBT`s yet still winning 2 trophies?

I beleive in this same year Celtic`s wage budget was also considerably higher.

Do you consider this competing?

i don't consider it competing in a fair and proper fashion, if you are neglecting to pay your debts to small business's or the tax man etc, instead spending money on players wages.

its a lovely story though. what did they reduce their debt to?

how much did rangers owe when they went into liquidation? debt they had not paid, that they made the decision instead to use the money to pay wages to players to compete with their rivals?

would you say that if rangers had decided to pay their debt and substantially reduce their wage bill, they could have competed with celtic?

surely you must say tedi, that in recent history, the only way rangers could compete with celtic, was to neglect to pay their debts, to free up money for player wages... a decision which lead to liquidation.

[Monkey Tennis]

Which team is giving a relevant challenge to winning the title.

Seriously Youngsy, I've no idea why you keep asking such daft questions mate.

The obvious answer is 'no team'. Celtic will of course cruise to the title because their relatively massive resources dictate that this is so. Nobody, but nobody on this thread is suggesting that the title race is engrossing. However, many of us are also saying that it's not been so for us, in quarter of a century.

Now, as a marketable product, the league probably would benefit from more of a battle to be champions. Remember however, that finance is not the entire point for some of us and it's great to see the top tier devoid of one of its most hated clubs.

Don't keep telling people it's much worse now, when their experience of it says otherwise.

[bennett]

don't know how likely, did the majority of players not leave in june, 2 weeks before the SPL vote?

Can't remember exactly what the dates were but the SPL clubs had already announced by then which way they would be voting. It was hardly a surprise.