Jump to content

bluto

Poor R*ngers Theads Merged.....

Recommended Posts


when I open it the options are whited out. I cant see which is yes and which is no. Will try a again at home with my own computer. (has a better browser than this work lap top). I was guessing that no was the bottom button but did not dare vote incase it was the other way round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just kick the cnuts out and then change all of the stuff Bill lists as demands:

Agree to change the league’s voting system from the current 11-1 needed to pass all votes to a fairer 8-4, the single move that would do more than any other to break the Old Firm’s stranglehold.

Agree to an even split of all commercial income on the basis it takes two teams to make a game, not just one of the big two and a makeweight.

Agree to all gate money being divided 50-50. It’s no coincidence that since home teams were allowed to keep the lot, the gap between Rangers, Celtic and the rest has turned into a chasm.

Agree to a league of either 16 or 18 teams. Never mind the fact it means two fewer Old Firm games, fans and players alike are sick and tired of the same Groundhog Day fixtures coming round every 11 weeks.

Agree to two down, two up and a play-off between third bottom and third of the second tier.

Agree to the withdrawal of stadium licences for any club whose fans persistently sing abusive, racist or sectarian chants.

Agree to take part in serious talks aimed at uniting the three bodies running the professional game into one within two years.

IF the SPL chairmen were to go down the route of negotiating, I'd like to see the votes on changing the 11-1, reconstruction etc taking place before the newco vote. Once a cheating bastard always a cheating bastard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real concern I think is they will still be in SPL next season.

I hope I am wrong , will they get 8 votes they need ?

One of the papers yesterday said it would only take 4 votes to keep them in. I suppose it depends on how the question is phrased:

Should a newco be admitted to the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass

Should a newco be expelled from the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the papers yesterday said it would only take 4 votes to keep them in. I suppose it depends on how the question is phrased:

Should a newco be admitted to the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass

Should a newco be expelled from the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass

My understanding os they need 8 clubs to say yes , only 4 to say no for them to be demoted.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they'll even be able to apply looks like the might have no players and Green and Smith squaring up like two bald men fighting over a comb

I think when transfer window kicks in , it will only take one of their better players to go & other agents to nudge their players & then it will commence.

I dont see many rushing out the door until the Newco / SPL vote has taken place in just over 2 weeks time early July.

They believe there are enough votes to keep them in SPL unsure.png

Its been messy , but will be good for all once it has been finalised , seems though Green will have a short tenure , he done the dirty work so now the coast is a bit clearer for him to cash in.

Div 3 has to be the outcome , surely ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think when transfer window kicks in , it will only take one of their better players to go & other agents to nudge their players & then it will commence.

I dont see many rushing out the door until the Newco / SPL vote has taken place in just over 2 weeks time early July.

They believe there are enough votes to keep them in SPL unsure.png

Its been messy , but will be good for all once it has been finalised , seems though Green will have a short tenure , he done the dirty work so now the coast is a bit clearer for him to cash in.

Div 3 has to be the outcome , surely ?

Do they need to wait on the transfer window ? The contracts were with oldco so no longer exist, expect to see some players walk away as free agents. The only thing that might stop some higher earning players leaving is Smith taking over but that would leave the players in a position where they have effectively been employed by the newco so accepted the transfer of contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding os they need 8 clubs to say yes , only 4 to say no for them to be demoted.?

I wouldn't put it past donkeymaster to try and rig the question so the minimum votes would pass the resolution.

Maybe if the CiC is succesful we should attempt to have an SPL vote of confidence in him he only seems to care about 2 clubs in Scotland and has continually ignored the comments and thoughts of the paying customers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the papers yesterday said it would only take 4 votes to keep them in. I suppose it depends on how the question is phrased:

Should a newco be admitted to the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass

Should a newco be expelled from the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass

The thing is you can't ask the question,Should a newco be expelled from the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass. How can you expel a club that isn't a member of the SPL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is you can't ask the question,Should a newco be expelled from the SPL ? 8 votes needed to pass. How can you expel a club that isn't a member of the SPL.

They won't ask the question about expeling a newco, it was only an example of how a question can be phrased in a different way to make it easier to get the answer wanted. I'm pretty certain donkeymaster will be considering how best to phrase the question to try and get what he sees as a positive result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't ask the question about expeling a newco, it was only an example of how a question can be phrased in a different way to make it easier to get the answer wanted. I'm pretty certain donkeymaster will be considering how best to phrase the question to try and get what he sees as a positive result.

Yes, I see the point you are making. I used to be of the opinion that Rangers would be voted back in. However the longer its gone on the more and more they have p*ssed everyone off. I think most clubs will boot them out the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will play out the way I suggested it should do months back. I think we'll see a move to two divisions 20/22. Newco will join in Division 2 and aim for promotion in one year. After the first year a proper league pyramid will be brought in to appease the likes of Spartans, Clydebank etc and everyone is happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will play out the way I suggested it should do months back. I think we'll see a move to two divisions 20/22. Newco will join in Division 2 and aim for promotion in one year. After the first year a proper league pyramid will be brought in to appease the likes of Spartans, Clydebank etc and everyone is happy.

In that circumstance the newco should be banned from being promoted for a minimum of 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this will play out the way I suggested it should do months back. I think we'll see a move to two divisions 20/22. Newco will join in Division 2 and aim for promotion in one year. After the first year a proper league pyramid will be brought in to appease the likes of Spartans, Clydebank etc and everyone is happy.

But that won't suit Sky who allegedly must have 4 OF games as season, but then as the OF is now just old there can't be 4 of games per season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But that won't suit Sky who allegedly must have 4 OF games as season, but then as the OF is now just old there can't be 4 of games per season.

Apparently thats not true although there does appear to be a stipulation about them being in the same league. Yorkston was on the radio yesterday banging on about SPL TV again so there must be a renegotiation about to happen but I think Sky would be ok with coverage of the two divisions for one year then getting back to normal.

Just as the Old Firm wanted to play in England, fans have been calling for a larger league. I think this is the common sense solution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't see why a vote is required.

From the Scottish FA mandatory criteria which declares that the following criteria are mandatory for any club to be eligible for a Club Licence Award. The distinctions between SPL, SFL and SHFL criteria are highlighted.

SPL rules state that, and I quote from criteria 8.1.1.,

Each club shall be required to provide a copy of its audited annual financial statements prepared according to the Companies Act 1985 and relevant accounting standards (UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice). Audited financial statements shall include the auditor’s report.

How can a club which did not exist until last week have an audited annual statement?

Surely this excludes them from Scottish professional football altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently thats not true although there does appear to be a stipulation about them being in the same league. Yorkston was on the radio yesterday banging on about SPL TV again so there must be a renegotiation about to happen but I think Sky would be ok with coverage of the two divisions for one year then getting back to normal.

Just as the Old Firm wanted to play in England, fans have been calling for a larger league. I think this is the common sense solution

Their is no old firm, Green has admitted it is a new club (although he is also insisting the history is intact) therefore they are not in the same league, one club is in the SPL while the other will soon no longer exist.

Common sense and **** fans don't go together, for 4 months they've been blaming and threatening everyone but the people who caused their vile institution to be liquidated - themselves and the people who ran it for the last 10 years. IF there was to be a concession given to keep them in the league then I would be demanding the following from them:

1/ They decide if it's a totally new club or an extension of the old club. If it's an extension of the old club, they get to keep all the history good and bad and accept the results of any investigations into that history and any punishments that come from it.

2/ They are put on probationary membership for 10 years, during that time any action from the club, an official or supporters that brings into disrepute (including sectarian abuse and bigotry or any talk of moving to another league) means termination of their membership.

3/ They put out a full, unreserved, public apology for their past misdeeds and acceptance that the problems they have experienced have not been caused by the SFA, SPL, SFL or any conspiracy against them but solely by their own financial mismanagement and greed.They should have to apologise for the lynch mob mentality stirred up by McCoist and Jardine amongst others and the threats that have been made during the last 4 months as a result of those actions.

4/ 50% of their income during the 10 years probationary period has to be given to organisations such as Nil by Mouth.

5/ Their financial accounts to be independently audited by SFA appointed auditors every six months.

6/ An initial reduction of 35 points to be reduced each year, over a 7 year period, by 5 points.

7/ Payment of any transfer fees during the probationary period to be paid to the selling club in full before registration of any player.

8/ The vote on voting and any other vote regarding restructuring etc is taken before the vote on who to transfer the share to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their is no old firm, Green has admitted it is a new club (although he is also insisting the history is intact) therefore they are not in the same league, one club is in the SPL while the other will soon no longer exist.

Common sense and **** fans don't go together, for 4 months they've been blaming and threatening everyone but the people who caused their vile institution to be liquidated - themselves and the people who ran it for the last 10 years. IF there was to be a concession given to keep them in the league then I would be demanding the following from them:

1/ They decide if it's a totally new club or an extension of the old club. If it's an extension of the old club, they get to keep all the history good and bad and accept the results of any investigations into that history and any punishments that come from it.

2/ They are put on probationary membership for 10 years, during that time any action from the club, an official or supporters that brings into disrepute (including sectarian abuse and bigotry or any talk of moving to another league) means termination of their membership.

3/ They put out a full, unreserved, public apology for their past misdeeds and acceptance that the problems they have experienced have not been caused by the SFA, SPL, SFL or any conspiracy against them but solely by their own financial mismanagement and greed.They should have to apologise for the lynch mob mentality stirred up by McCoist and Jardine amongst others and the threats that have been made during the last 4 months as a result of those actions.

4/ 50% of their income during the 10 years probationary period has to be given to organisations such as Nil by Mouth.

5/ Their financial accounts to be independently audited by SFA appointed auditors every six months.

6/ An initial reduction of 35 points to be reduced each year, over a 7 year period, by 5 points.

7/ Payment of any transfer fees during the probationary period to be paid to the selling club in full before registration of any player.

8/ The vote on voting and any other vote regarding restructuring etc is taken before the vote on who to transfer the share to.

Common sense and any football club fan doesn't usually go together.

Look, if you have a new league structure - two enlarged divisions, a pyramid structure, equal voting rights for all 42 teams, maybe even split gate money and TV revenue and sponsorship money split more fairly amongst all 42 clubs, surely we get exactly the kind of football league we've all been demanding for years. "The Rangers" would be starting again from the bottom, their European ban will still be in place, there could still be a requirement for them to pay all football related debts from the old club and possibly still a transfer embargo and banning from the Scottish Cup - maybe even for a number of years.

I could back that sort of common sense solution which could be advantageous for the whole of Scottish Football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...