MarkYardley'sNo.1Fan

From what HJ is saying yes they probably would. I was thinking that the SPL would have a strong case for saying no club 12 at all, but a weak case for justifying one or the other.

I'm not suggesting for a moment they'd be so honest. The league would be expanded for next season and they'd probably hope to slip Rangers back in then, when fans are finally given their wish of an expanded top flight they might be a bit more reluctant to boycott etc. From what you say 11 team SPL should be a non-starter, but I just can't see this being as straightforward as Dundee/Dunfermline up Rangers to Division 3, there's bound to be another twist.

The problem the SPL have is that no matter which team they pick (Dundee or Dunfermline) the other will likely appeal the decision, legally challenge it etc. So they have a ready made excuse there for going with 11, and of course this also allows for the possibility of somehow getting Rangers back in in a year when the dust settles. And as I said the diddy clubs would have an extra matchday against the big clubs and there'd be less teams to share TV money with. It's a horrible plan but it's the only way they can avoid Rangers going to Division 3 without being put straight back in the SPL, whether Rangers could survive a year with no league to play in is another matter.

Is an 11 team SPL a possibility? Play each other 4 times to give 40 matches. It would give teams like St. Mirren/ICT an extra game against Celtic/Hearts etc and would mean 1 less team to share the pot with. Is this allowed?

Is there any chance we could somehow see Rangers oldco resurrected?

What seems to be forgotten in all this is just how pathetic the offer to the SFL was - £1m plus 'we'll have a wee think about league expansion' hardly once in a lifetime stuff. Either accept that Rangers are in Division 3 or come up with a serious offer which reflects the need of SPL clubs to make serious sacrifices. As much as I'd like to think the SFL clubs put Rangers into the 3rd purely for sporting integrity, it's much more likely they took that offer as an insult and would require significantly more to sell out. I'd gladly accept Rangers in the 1st if it meant genuine once in a lifetime changes to the game.

Would Rangers being relegated/moved to the First Division and an 11th vs 2nd playoff being introduced be enough to appease the fans threatening to quit Scottish Football?

Jesus, you really are determined to drag all this shit up! I'm well aware people on here condemned McCoist, my point was about the difference in level of reaction. I don't recall seeing topics started last week about McCoist calling him every name under the sun etc. My comment about 'subtle sectarianism' was in relation to someone on here suggesting Neil Lennon is in the Celtic job because of his background. This is a common accusation with regards Celtic/Lennon yet I've not heard anyone say this about Rangers/McCoist. McCoist has been fucking awful getting knocked out of 4 competitions by Malmo/Maribor/Falkirk/Dundee Utd, yet very few people feel the need to say he's only in the job because of his background. Why is this? Why the difference? Maybe both are there simply because they are club legends. There are posters on here who accuse Celtic fans of loving Neil Lennon and Martin O'Neil because of their backgrounds and hating Gordon Strachan because of his. You don't need to be a Celtic fan to know they have plenty of non-Irish non-Catholic heroes, yet my experience on here is that these insinuations are deemed acceptable and are quite common. Why? The Gordon Strachan/Celtic situation was no more/less strange than the Jimmy Calderwood situation at Aberdeen.

Apologies. I assumed, as was made out on here, that he was of the same mind as your manager who was of the opinion we all need Rangers last night on Sportsound. It really was quite embarrassing listening to it last night, god only knows what Terry Butcher and Stuart McCall would say if they were given the airtime

Why did you feel the need to bring that up? I did think it was interesting last week that we seen yet another Neil Lennon topic started yet there was no rush of topics dealing with Ally McCoist's shameful actions. If Neil Lennon (in a similar situation) came out with the shit Ally McCoist did last week there would be umpteen topics started on here. Of course it would simply be because Lennon isn't a very nice man

With regards Rangers punishment, I think it really has to be all or nothing. If they're relegated to one of the lower leagues then it'll generally be seen as strong leadership with integrity intact, if they stay in the SPL with no further punishment then there will be uproar, if they stay in the SPL with sanctions then there will still be uproar but there will also be no chance of a decent title race in the coming years. Rangers might be too weak to challenge anyway but adding sanctions will just compound the issue. Am I the only non-OF fan who actually enjoys their battles for the title? Given the choice between a 1 horse race and a 2 horse race I know what I'd pick. If Rangers are being kept in the SPL to preserve the TV deal then you have to ask are SKY really interested in paying top dollar for an SPL with a pish Rangers team who can't sign anyone starting on -10 points? All or nothing. My gut feeling at the moment is that they'll end up in the First Division with no sanctions. What I can't comprehend about all this is the stance of clubs like St. Johnstone. St. Johnstone, St. Mirren, ICT and Dunfermline have all had significant periods in the First Division in recent years where there's no TV money, no OF, no Aberdeen, no Hearts, no Hibs and they all survived. Now all they are being asked to do is survive 3 seasons (at most) without one half of the OF and St. Johnstone are coming out with 'we NEED Rangers in the SPL!'. That's clearly pish. You want Rangers in the SPL, it's more valuable with them in it, I can accept that. What I can't accept is being lied to and treated like a fucking mug. If Stewart Gilmour comes out and says he's in favour of keeping Rangers in the SPL because he's in the process of selling his shares and he wants the best price possible then fair enough, I might not agree with it but I'd respect the honesty. What I can't be arsed with is all the nonsense about how we'd die a slow lingering death without RFC, that's a fucking lie

If that happens, and the fans of the other clubs continue as before renewing season tickets/buying merchandise etc, then they deserve everything they get. My guess is that if 'Rangers 2012' are allowed straight back into the SPL then it will probably be done in conjunction with an increase to 14 clubs to make the whole thing more palatable to your average supporter. Either that or there isn't actually a legally binding clause in the TV deal which stipulates that Rangers must be present in the SPL, which imo, would see 'Rangers 2012' start from the 3rd Division without much financial impact on the remaining SPL clubs. This would actually suit Rangers.

Motherwell are heading for Europe for the 4th time in 5 years if I'm not mistaken and they also made the Scottish Cup final last season. Even Dundee and Livingston are now safe 1st Division clubs which is probably about their level. I'd expect Dundee to get promotion in the next couple of seasons.

Sorry, I didn't word my post particularly well. I meant 'hoping' in the realistic sense. A few weeks back I was hoping St. Mirren would make the top 6 and believed it was possible, at the start of the season I was hoping we'd win the league but I didn't believe it was possible. There seems to be a genuine belief on here that this is going to hurt Rangers in the long term and that somehow we'll all benefit. But looking at it rationally we're getting our hopes up for nothing, they'll be back bigger and stronger than the rest of us (excluding Celtic) in no more than 3 years, and in the meantime we'll have less money and still no chance of winning the title. I want to believe but I just can't, THE BIG HOOSE WILL STAY OPEN

I never bought into this notion that somehow Walter Smith was operating on a tight budget compared with his various Celtic counterparts. There was a table on here the other week which, iirc, showed that in the last 5 years Rangers had actually paid out a similar amount to Celtic in transfer fees but had received a lot less in transfer fees coming in. O'Neil certainly had an advantage over McLeish (in wage bill at least), but Celtic only just lost those two titles. IIRC one was on goal difference (Dunfermline ) after their run to the UEFA Cup final and then who can forget them throwing it away at Fir Park . You're right though, having that kind of financial gap doesn't make the title a certainty, but theoretically those two titles could have easily gone the other way and we'd have had 5 consecutive titles for Celtic.