ayrmad Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Well any changes now still rely on the benevolent attitude of the SPL clubs and surely you have to agree that any negotiation is now tainted by a lack of co-operation from the SFL over the Rangers affair. My point is for anyone to say reconstruction has been swept under the carpet is availing themselves of a few facts. Reconstruction can only happen if compromises can be found, a compromise was offered to the SFL and they turned down the biggest bargaining chip. If I remember correctly no details were set in stone either, the SFL were merely asked if the board could negotiate a settlement for reconstruction with the SPL. I doubt the SFL and SPL will meet on such an equal footing again. Look, the SPL baw is burst, you can continue to kick it around all you like, eventually someone else will trip over it, if it's admin they'll be fine, liquidation and they'll be scrambling around trying to purchase a diddy. Only a fool doesn't fork out for a shiny new baw. Edited July 17, 2012 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdenbeath Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 In the 80's (I think) Rangers got to the league cup final with ALL of their games played at a neutral venue. Cant remember all of the teams that they were drawn away to but pretty sure Meadowbank was one of them. I'll amend that. they did have a couple of home draws but games against Cowdenbeath and Meadowbank were moved. We played them at Central Park that season their game v Meadowbank got moved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 and they turned down the biggest bargaining chip. Again, what? Allowing Sevco into D1 was surrendering the SFL's biggest bargaining chip, for nothing but empty promises and hot air. Had the SFL clubs voted to gerrymander Sevco into D! they were fucked completely. The SPL clubs would have had everything they wanted and would have no further use for the SFL. Kindof like telling a bird that if she lets you into her pants you'll consider proposing marriage and getting a house together *nothing in this statement is legally binding, and sexual intercourse in no way implies a binding agreement to do anything at all* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistle_do_nicely Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) So the SFA were desperate for Sevco Rangers to go into the 1st Division or even the SPL relatively unscathed... and now that they are in the 3rd they won't grant them SFA membership unless they accept the transfer embargo/football debts of the OldCo? Why the change in tact? Edited July 17, 2012 by Thistle_do_nicely 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Well any changes now still rely on the benevolent attitude of the SPL clubs and surely you have to agree that any negotiation is now tainted by a lack of co-operation from the SFL over the Rangers affair. My point is for anyone to say reconstruction has been swept under the carpet is availing themselves of a few facts. Reconstruction can only happen if compromises can be found, a compromise was offered to the SFL and they turned down the biggest bargaining chip. If I remember correctly no details were set in stone either, the SFL were merely asked if the board could negotiate a settlement for reconstruction with the SPL. I doubt the SFL and SPL will meet on such an equal footing again. I'm afraid I agree with you. The only chance for serious reconstruction now is Doncaster's predictions turning out to be true after all, and the SPL imploding, or splitting the leagues into 3 instead of 4 to get Rangers back up quicker.. The SFL had a one time only chance to force a radical reform of Scottish football, and they blew it out of petulance. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Sergio Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I am beginning to think Rangers will not Play a competitive game next season in any division. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Northerner Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) So the SFA were desperate for Sevco Rangers to go into the 1st Division or even the SPL relatively unscathed... and now that they are in the 3rd they won't grant them SFA membership unless they accept the transfer embargo/football debts of the OldCo? Why the change in tact? Obviously, there was a financial argument between SPL, Div 1 and Div 3 but NewCo being a continuation is a different debate. OldCo's failings have to be taken on if NewCo wants to carry on as Rangers, no matter where in the structure they ended up Edited July 17, 2012 by The Old Northerner 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glen Sannox Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I am beginning to think Rangers will not Play a competitive game next season in any division. I think you may well be right, it just doesn't seem feasible for them to be up and running/playing by next week. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I'm afraid I agree with you. The only chance for serious reconstruction now is Doncaster's predictions turning out to be true after all, and the SPL imploding, or splitting the leagues into 3 instead of 4 to get Rangers back up quicker.. The SFL had a one time only chance to force a radical reform of Scottish football, and they blew it out of petulance. The SFL2 & SFL3 clubs were getting shafted totally by the proposed reconstruction. They would have been very quickly shunted into regional leagues in a pyramid system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demented Zebra Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 THIS SHOULD BE MOVED TO DIVISION THREE -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Again, what? Allowing Sevco into D1 was surrendering the SFL's biggest bargaining chip, for nothing but empty promises and hot air. Had the SFL clubs voted to gerrymander Sevco into D! they were fucked completely. The SPL clubs would have had everything they wanted and would have no further use for the SFL. Kindof like telling a bird that if she lets you into her pants you'll consider proposing marriage and getting a house together *nothing in this statement is legally binding, and sexual intercourse in no way implies a binding agreement to do anything at all* If the SFL want reconstruction what they did with Rangers did nothing to advance that cause, more likely it has harmed it. If the bird isn't going to give you a shag until you give her a ring then you'd probably send her packing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demented Zebra Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 THIS SHOULD BE MOVED TO DIVISION THREE -5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candalan Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It is looking increasingly likely that (Whatever they are called) will not be able to kick a ball in Div 3, F??k them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The SFL2 & SFL3 clubs were getting shafted totally by the proposed reconstruction. They would have been very quickly shunted into regional leagues in a pyramid system. The proposed deal wasn't enough, the SFL vote should have been postponed till the Tuesday to allow the SPL to vote through cast iron reforms acceptable to the 30 SFL members on the Monday. The SFL won't have that leverage again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Very possibly. But it shows the problems in having clubs that have no concept of PR, when issuing statements. For no one to be able to say to Gilmour and Cameron - "look, you can't say that" is a problem. This will be a stain on St Mirren and ICT for a long time to come. It won't be forgotten. Some Falkirk fans still hate Gilmour for his comments about Falkirk 10 years ago. Personally, those didn't bother me, as I thought he was in the right. I despise him and Cameron now though. I'm not sure whether I'll end up goign back to watch Scottish football in the future, but I certainly won't give a penny to either club whilst Cameron and Gilmour are still there. Gilmour has used "scaremongering" tactics in the past to reasonably good effect. Most notably when we needed council planning permission to rezone the land at Love St to make more off a sale - he got tremendous buy in from the fans to support the stadium move in general, largely by indicating we would be kaput if it didn't happen. Only the other week he was telling the world that the club would definitely be sold to overseas investors this summer if the CIC plan didn't come off. It played a part in galvanizing numbers of fans who were undecided. I suspect there was an element of that in his statements at the weekend, to try to scare people into coming out to support. His comment about the SFL clubs was embarassing and disgraceful though. If it was an attempt at "PR" it was a shockingly ill advised one, I'm sure we'd all agree! I don't mind his view that SFL1 for "Rangers" was a decent outcome, he's entitled to that view, but to try to pin blame for any of our own problems on SFL clubs was scandalous. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 So the SFA were desperate for Sevco Rangers to go into the 1st Division or even the SPL relatively unscathed... and now that they are in the 3rd they won't grant them SFA membership unless they accept the transfer embargo/football debts of the OldCo? Why the change in tact? It may be that Green would've complied immediately had it been SFL1, tbf, although who knows. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If the SFL want reconstruction what they did with Rangers did nothing to advance that cause, more likely it has harmed it. "The SFL" don't want reconstruction. Certain clubs in the SFL top echeclons like Falkirk do. Once we get back into the SPL we won't give a f**k about reconstruction. The proposals, as craig says, were dreadful for the Arbroath and East Stirlings of the league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share Posted July 17, 2012 Possibly, Gilmour may have seen the loss of a million quid, personally, staring him in the face. We had almost agreed a Clyde-type CIC buyout, but Friday's decision could have affected income, therefore share value, reducing the price which could reasonably have been asked of the fans consortium. Maybe it'll setle down now and we can get on with getting the club into our supporters' trust. Stewart Gilmour has done a lot of good for our club, along with his BOD. In forming their 5 person consortium though, they ring-fenced their 52% controlling interest, and froze out some significant minority shareholders, including director Gordon Scott. Scott made two known bids for the club - at a figure believed to be between 800k - 1 million. With a 2 million price tag placed on their shares, these bids were rejected, and Gordon Scott left and busied himself with buying property in Las Vegas. Richard Atkinson of Maxi Haulage approched the selling consortium with the CIC plan, and convinced of its merit, Atkinson was co-opted onto our BoD as commercial director while negotiations for the 10000hours group to purchase the controlling interest progressed. The selling price was still 2 million. After a long and tortuous road, the deal was the proverbial baw' hair away from concluding - but fell at the final hurdle for a reason outwith both Gilmour and Atkinson's control. Gilmour and the selling consortium saw 2 million disappear just as it was within touching distance. Things were changing rapidly in the world we live in. Clubs couldn't borrow, belts were being tightened, suddenly 2 million for their 52% was unachievable. CiC deal Mk2 kicked off, selling price now approximtely 1.5 million. It couldn't be met, the deal fell to anywhere between 1.1 and 1.25 million... It was close to concluding again - then Rangers blew up in everyone's face. Suddenly it seemed that Scottish football was on the edge of an abyss, and this was no time for 1.1 - 1.25 million deals at St Mirren, and the deal was put on ice. Our chairnan was in the right place at the right time to do the Tesco stadium deal. Since attempting to sell up and hand the reins over - everything has turned to shit right in front of him at every turn. Wrong place, wrong time. I can understand his frustration, given the years of service and the overall great job he's done. Maybe he should have accepted Gordon Scott's bid - if he had, he'd have been well out of this Rangers induced shit storm. I think, with the SFL 3 decision, he is maybe seeing his payday disappear down a black hole with Craig Whyte, David Murray, and Charles Green's faces haunting him at night. Lashing out is understandable - lashing out at the SFL chairmen and alienating home and away fans is deeply disappointing and will achieve nothing. I would however be disappointed if St Mirren and ICT ended up on some sort of boycott list. if people are going to boycott two of the SPLs well-run clubs, who pay their way, sort out their finances and live within their means, then what hope is there for us to prove that we all can survive, and thrive, without Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) THIS SHOULD BE MOVED TO DIVISION THREE This should be moved to division 3 thread for this pish. Edited July 17, 2012 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McLean's Ghost Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 "The SFL" don't want reconstruction. Certain clubs in the SFL top echeclons like Falkirk do. Once we get back into the SPL we won't give a f**k about reconstruction. The proposals, as craig says, were dreadful for the Arbroath and East Stirlings of the league. Fair point and it is why SPL2 gets aired every few seasons. The top few teams in the SFL don't see themselves as similar to SFL 2 and 3 clubs who have never even had aspirations of getting into division 1 and are more worried about keeping closed any trap door at the bottom of the third. 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.