Itwiznaeme Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 . I reckon Green has found himself as last man standing and he knows that despite all the chest beating from guys like Watty and Brown no one is going to help him out with a few quid. He also knows that if he walks away now then rankers 2.0 will be no more and Ipox will implode. His backers were people that liked the idea of owning a club so said that if he laid the groundwork and smoothed out the problems then they would be in, but over time I figure they have all distanced themselves from what they will see as a poisoned chalice. Why would anyone want to invest in a club whose fans can be seen on tv protesting and abusing the only person that has actually stuck around long enough to keep them with a club to support. This "we still want to be rangers, but we aren't actually rangers" routine is only masking the inevitable in my opinion. He will eventually walk away claiming he tried to do all he could but "the sins of the father" were too great. Meanwhile the SFA will be having to decide if they should let rankers 2.0 into the fold and pray without any guarantees that they can play a full season, or claim that they tried everything to help NewCo take it's place in the 3rd but it just wasn't possible. Green is spinning plates right now but eventually they will all fall. My thoughts too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 What's the conclusion of this line of thought, though? That SFL clubs should have sold themselves and their organisation down the river for £1M, a play-off place, a committee and the abandonment of the sporting values their fans demanded? It certainly appears SPL clubs (or at least SPL hierarchy) though they'd do exactly that, tbf... it also appears they got it 25-5 wrong. Just confirming that the offer whilst paltry, was`nt entirely hot air and non existent. For what it`s worth though, (and I said this on the day), if the offer had been firmed to include the play off place and the definite expansion of the top league to 16 teams then I`d have been upset if Beattie had`nt voted YES. It was only the working party and committee clauses that made me contact the club to demand a NO vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 So tell me, when you personally examined the document, there were no applicable `get out` clauses, no codicils relating to annual income streams and no mention of a sliding scale of payment. Not for a second doubting you, it`s just that from my experience it`s easier to work on the basis that the SPL lie as a default position. I've never seen the document, for the obvious reason that it's not in the public domain... However, I've no reason to doubt statements from the likes of Raith and Clyde, in reply to claims it'd be stopped. Those have clarified that it began at ~£1.5M in 1998, and has risen in accordance with rising SPL income and the RPI... that it only falls if SPL income drops below £6M... and even then it reduces on a scale, it doesn't stop. SPL was forecast to take-in perhaps £22-23M this coming season. As such, assuming it'll cease to exist is scaremongering or uber-extreme pessimism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyrshireTon Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Chris McLaughlin@BBCchrismclaugMeeting between #SFA and #Rangers board continues at Hampden. They've now been talking for 4 hours. Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite If Green isn't there, WTF are they talking about? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 From BBC Chris McL on Twitter: Meeting between #SFA and #Rangers board continues at Hampden. They've now been talking for 4 hours. __________ Could today be the day that no fitba next season is confirmed???? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 @rangersmeltdown: wheres jock wallace when you need him, he woulda fucking kicked regans door in and turned the c**t inside oot. They still haven't learned the lessons that they need to learn during this entire saga. One of those lessons being that it is the retarded neanderthal thinking of morons such as the fool who tweeted that who are partly responsible for the predicament that they currently find themselves in. Many of them do not appear capable of evolving and may be doomed to extinction sooner or later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Just confirming that the offer whilst paltry, was`nt entirely hot air and non existent. For what it`s worth though, (and I said this on the day), if the offer had been firmed to include the play off place and the definite expansion of the top league to 16 teams then I`d have been upset if Beattie had`nt voted YES. It was only the working party and committee clauses that made me contact the club to demand a NO vote. As I suggested before, the SFL should have postponed their vote to the Tuesday with the clear message that unless the SPL voted a concrete commitment to the above on the Monday, the clubs would be likely to vote Rangers into the 3rd. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) I must say that personally I hope they don't end-up taking a season out... I'm not sure how that works anyway (transfer SFA membership, accept embargo, join no league, quit cup?) but we'll have a full season of the newspapers creaming themselves every fortnight, about the latest "secret plan" to put "Rangers" straight back into the top level or 2nd level. As I suggested before, the SFL should have postponed their vote to the Tuesday with the clear message that unless the SPL voted a concrete commitment to the above on the Monday, the clubs would be likely to vote Rangers into the 3rd. No they shouldn't: it'd have been pointless... the cause was lost before the Wednesday when the paltry plans were offerred or the Friday of the vote. It's simply not the case that 25 clubs voted "No" only because the offer wasn't good enough. Too much water had already passed. Also, don't SPL rule changes require 14 days? Edited July 17, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor 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. League reconstruction thread for this tear stained pish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araminta Moonbeam QC Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 STV Grant (who has been a bit of a revelation this week) gets a quote from FIFA and UEFA that they are not meeting with Chasbo Green. Its *almost* like he's bullshitting, isn't it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulo Sergio Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Sevco won't be playing football at all this season and then there will be major reconstruction attempts next year to start them off in a new second tier. NAP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The/Republic Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Working for scrip is illegal. As are Dundee United. Their support isn't full of plastic, self-hating imbeciles though. plastic , self hating imbeciles are still entitled to fly whatever flag they wish 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 As I suggested before, the SFL should have postponed their vote to the Tuesday with the clear message that unless the SPL voted a concrete commitment to the above on the Monday, the clubs would be likely to vote Rangers into the 3rd. Doncaster quite clearly stated at the time that the SPL would simply hold off themselves. Anyway, this is bollocks. Integrity means "cannot be bought". If any restructuring deal was predicated on Sevco being given a direct route to the top of the league then the game was dead and buried. Falkirk fans should be grateful that it wasn't, as the positive-sounding statements from their club (and especially the very strong interview from their manager on the radio) would have melted like snow off a dyke if the correct sweetener were offered and they'd be pariahs right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 STV Grant (who has been a bit of a revelation this week) gets a quote from FIFA and UEFA that they are not meeting with Chasbo Green. Its *almost* like he's bullshitting, isn't it? He's apparently meeting with their lawyer. Some Italian chap. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) As I suggested before, the SFL should have postponed their vote to the Tuesday with the clear message that unless the SPL voted a concrete commitment to the above on the Monday, the clubs would be likely to vote Rangers into the 3rd. Spot on. Problem is that we have went from calling the shots to having no bargaining position and for what? No tangible return whatsoever. Nothing. It`s done and dusted and even if they change the voting system to 8 - 4 then there`s little or no chance of league reconstruction in the forseeable future. All these claims by Gilmour and his pals about the need for a bigger top league is already something that won`t be talked about. Hey, the Self Preservation league is merely doing what it does best. Edited July 17, 2012 by somner`s love child 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I must say that personally I hope they don't end-up taking a season out... I'm not sure how that works anyway (transfer SFA membership, accept embargo, join no league, quit cup?) but we'll have a full season of the newspapers creaming themselves every fortnight, about the latest "secret plan" to put "Rangers" straight back into the top level or 2nd level. No they shouldn't: it'd have been pointless... the cause was lost before the Wednesday when the paltry plans were offerred or the Friday of the vote. It's simply not the case that 25 clubs voted "No" only because the offer wasn't good enough. Too much water had already passed. Also, don't SPL rule changes require 14 days? Given the hysterical reactions from Paisley and Inverness after the vote, I think it likely that they'd have been prepared to sign up to a better deal. As it is, the SFL no longer have anything to bargain with. The SPL rules only last as long as they want them to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stonedsailor Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Spot on. Problem is that we have went from calling the shots to having no bargaining position and for what? No tangible return whatsoever. Nothing. It`s done and dusted and even if they change the voting system to 8 - 4 then there`s little or no chance of league reconstruction in the forseeable future. All these claims by Gilmour and his pals about the need for a bigger top league is already something that won`t be talked about. Hey, the Self Preservation league is merely doing what it does best. The SPL refused to admit the brand new entity that is Sevco Scotland Ltd. The SFL sold out and allowed them admission to their league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Problem is that we have went from calling the shots to having no bargaining position and for what? No tangible return whatsoever. Nothing. The "tangible return" was the firm indication that no club is bigger than the sport in this country. Far more important than some hasty changes to the league which would primarily benefit some wannabe Judases in the upper half of SFL1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 I imagine it is too late for another team to be asked to joint SFL3, so if Sevco can't compete this season there will be a spare place next season. If that happens I can see the reconstruction argument suddenly becoming sexy again in the eyes of the SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The SPL refused to admit the brand new entity that is Sevco Scotland Ltd. The SFL sold out and allowed them admission to their league. Hiya Kenny, hiya pal. 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.