Jump to content

New Rangers to become Newcastle Feeder Club?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 266
  • Created
  • Last Reply

"I have handed in my notice and have told the guys I am happy to take the team. So I am not going to complain,"

That line was a cracker actually laughed out loud when i heard it basically saying "I don't care anymore let them tell me what to do i'm finished at Rangers anyway."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That line was a cracker actually laughed out loud when i heard it basically saying "I don't care anymore let them tell me what to do i'm finished at Rangers anyway."

McDowell and McCoist have brilliantly illustrated just why gardening leave was invented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And has Kenny dropped them in it?

SPFL rule 65 states: “Other than as expressly provided for in the Rules and these Regulation, it shall not be permitted to stipulate when or against whom, a player temporarily transferred may or may not play and any such stipulation in any agreement shall be void and of no effect.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question must be why would he NEED to insist they play, surely if they are that much better McDowall would have put them in the team without being forced to? I know they have their favourites in the team but we must be talking players that are level above Rangers' current cloggers.

I expect Ashley insists on them playing so that they get some match fitness and some game time to try and flog them off to another club. If they came here and didn't play in this league, they'd be worth nothing after that.

The old pals act, not having a clue how to play the players we've already got etc...

Kenny cb will probably play them all out of position anyway and make a kunt of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And has Kenny dropped them in it?

SPFL rule 65 states: “Other than as expressly provided for in the Rules and these Regulation, it shall not be permitted to stipulate when or against whom, a player temporarily transferred may or may not play and any such stipulation in any agreement shall be void and of no effect.”

You missed out "excluding when the manager is even more inept than McCoist and someone has to show the numpty what to do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a few of you are all over-thinking on behalf of Kenny McDowall here. He has no grand plan, he certainly hasn't made this up to further some kind of agenda. Kenny is an empty vessel, a shell of a man, barely able to string three words together, barely able to understand a thing he sees through those dark, cloudy eyes. Inside that big baldy dome of his is a brain the size of a peanut. He's been told to play the players so he will. He's been asked about the players so he answered. That's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And has Kenny dropped them in it?

SPFL rule 65 states: “Other than as expressly provided for in the Rules and these Regulation, it shall not be permitted to stipulate when or against whom, a player temporarily transferred may or may not play and any such stipulation in any agreement shall be void and of no effect.”

Oh dear. The Ps&Ds getting their drawers fankled over 'the rules' again. This may only be of interest to a few but if you google the phrase, "SPFL rule 65 states" you only get a few hits:

post-44711-0-23447600-1423149559_thumb.j

Clearly the barrack-room lawyers among the ranks of the obsessed now keep a copy of The SPFL Rules under the bed rather than skud books.

Anyway, I am almost certain that the agreement for The Loan Rangers will nowhere 'stipulate when or against whom' they play. Still, if it amuses the slow of thinking to add this accusation to our list of calumnies then who am I to protest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear. The Ps&Ds getting their drawers fankled over 'the rules' again. This may only be of interest to a few but if you google the phrase, "SPFL rule 65 states" you only get a few hits:

attachicon.gifrule 65.JPG

Clearly the barrack-room lawyers among the ranks of the obsessed now keep a copy of The SPFL Rules under the bed rather than skud books.

Anyway, I am almost certain that the agreement for The Loan Rangers will nowhere 'stipulate when or against whom' they play. Still, if it amuses the slow of thinking to add this accusation to our list of calumnies then who am I to protest?

Doubt that's of interest to anyone tbh. No need to be so sensitive, I was only asking the question.

If the agreement doesn't stipulate this than why has the manager said he has to play them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubt that's of interest to anyone tbh. No need to be so sensitive, I was only asking the question.

If the agreement doesn't stipulate this than why has the manager said he has to play them?

Me? Sensitive? Hardly. What it does mean, though, is that you either thumb through the SPFL Rules of a night or you scour other forums for tasty Rangers-related morsels to rehash on here. To which of these sad acts would you prefer to plead guilty?

Anyway, as to the point. There is a difference between i. a formal agreement between two clubs setting out the conditions governing the use of loaned players and ii a club's caretaker manager doing what he is told. If you don't understand that then I suggest you go back to Jambo Kickback or Talksellick and see if the penny's dropped there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And has Kenny dropped them in it?

SPFL rule 65 states: “Other than as expressly provided for in the Rules and these Regulation, it shall not be permitted to stipulate when or against whom, a player temporarily transferred may or may not play and any such stipulation in any agreement shall be void and of no effect.”

That rule refers to the loaning club. Newcastle havent, at least not publicly, told Rangers that the players should play. That rule doesnt cover Board members telling the manager which players to pick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That rule refers to the loaning club. Newcastle havent, at least not publicly, told Rangers that the players should play. That rule doesnt cover Board members telling the manager which players to pick

Pish. That sounds awfully similar to the difference between cheating and deliberate and sustained rule-breaking IMO and Kenny Klipboard's pathetic mewling about 'only doing what he's told' must be regarded as evidence of The Tribute Act driving a coach and horses through the rules yet again with the full connivance of the authorities who will sit on their hands and, again, do nothing. Sporting integrity my well-padded arse.

Note to the diddies: Feel welcome to cut and paste the above rather than going to the bother of typing out your usual repetitive bilge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Utterly bizarre turn of events by the board. Behind closed doors I'd sort of get, but doing this so openly, without trying to gag KMcD. Utterly mental. KMcD ain't going to walk. They are not stupid people, at least not that stupid. You would think concepts around damage limitation, and appearing to have a grip on the business would feature high on the agenda before a prospective EGM. It's cack-handed, stunningly embarrassing, practically taboo in the football world & completely toxic to any dressing room - and all that is so obvious it just screams fire-sale, asset strip - as they literally do not give a jot how they are perceived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...