Leepylee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Brechin City@BrechinCFC According to BBC Brechin v Rangers off!! Really ? On what grounds ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Haha those are not facts. You said there dosnt SEEM any reason , that's not stating facts I could equally say there Does SEEM to be a valid reason the spl should be allowed to veto a club from sfl Ie if spl said they didn't want rangers cause they're cheats and banned from our league for life then sfl would have to take this on board Incase the club ever one 1st division and spl said they weren't accepting them THAT'S a valid reason for spl to get a say on sfl membership applicants. Tosh. SPL shouldn't have any rights to 'veto' someone joining SFL. They might ask SFL to "take something on board" if they like, but that's as far as it goes. And they did, btw. They asked them to "take on board" admitting NewCo direct to SFL1. Answer was "No"... 25-5. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbornbairn Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 From the BBC - The SPL want an independent commission to rule on whether Rangers broke the rules during previous campaigns by paying players with so called side contracts.They are due to hand over their findings to that commission on 10 August.But Rangers fear an independent commission could strip them of titles and believe they have already been sufficiently punished. That'll be a Guilty plea then? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 It's an unofficial page. I've checked the BBC and can't really see any reference to this at all, unless he's referring to the 'Rangers' might not get license article, where it said the game wouldn't go ahead if this is the case. It's a red herring I think to be honest. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Tosh. SPL shouldn't have any rights to 'veto' someone joining SFL. They might ask SFL to "take something on board" if they like, but that's as far as it goes. And they did, btw. They asked them to "take on board" admitting NewCo direct to SFL1. Answer was "No"... 25-5. I agree with you completely, but is it not in the public eye that all 5 parties must be in agreement before the SFA license can be granted? This whole thing gets more and more ridiculous by the day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swello Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I think the fact that it seemingly needs 5 (five) parties to agree to register a new 3rd division team as an SFA member is another reason why the administration of Scottish Football needs a massive axe taken to it - The SFA, SFL and (especially) SPL cannot be allowed to exist in their current forms after this debacle. The Media rights cock-waving was pretty inevitable I think - but the thing that has really staggered me is the idea that Rangers would have the balls to ask for the dual contracts investigation to be halted - even by their standards, that shows a stunning degree of arrogance. It's a bit like Fred West saying "Well, You did give me that parking ticket, which I paid - so let's forget about all them murders I done and we'll say no more about it. Oh - and you owe me a new patio". At a very basic level, I cannot understand why Sevco's license application is being treated as a negotiation by all involved when in reality it should be a process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) I agree with you completely, but is it not in the public eye that all 5 parties must be in agreement before the SFA license can be granted? This whole thing gets more and more ridiculous by the day. If Rangers refuse to accept the conditions, citing no EBTs indemnity, that's up to them and their lookout... but it cannot be torpedoed simply due to SPL being spiteful that SFL won't give them their TV rights on terms SFL find unacceptable. That's madness. Edited July 21, 2012 by HibeeJibee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Tosh. SPL shouldn't have any rights to 'veto' someone joining SFL. They might ask SFL to "take something on board" if they like, but that's as far as it goes. And they did, btw. They asked them to "take on board" admitting NewCo direct to SFL1. Answer was "No"... 25-5. You seem to be missing the point that this has nothing to do with the SFL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I think the fact that it seemingly needs 5 (five) parties to agree to register a new 3rd division team as an SFA member is another reason why the administration of Scottish Football needs a massive axe taken to it - The SFA, SFL and (especially) SPL cannot be allowed to exist in their current forms after this debacle. The Media rights cock-waving was pretty inevitable I think - but the thing that has really staggered me is the idea that Rangers would have the balls to ask for the dual contracts investigation to be halted - even by their standards, that shows a stunning degree of arrogance. It's a bit like Fred West saying "Well, You did give me that parking ticket, which I paid - so let's forget about all them murders I done and we'll say no more about it. Oh - and you owe me a new patio". At a very basic level, I cannot understand why Sevco's license application is being treated as a negotiation by all involved when in reality it should be a process. Smoke and mirrors? Newco 'reluctantly' agree to SPL having locus in the TV deal, SPL 'reluctantly' agree to drop EBT case? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 You seem to be missing the point that this has nothing to do with the SFL. As far as I can see the only reason it has anyhing to do with SFL is due to SPL's bringing the TV deal into it? I'd agree entirely that those discussions should have nothing to do with SFA memberships. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlasgowCeltic.org Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 At a very basic level, I cannot understand why Sevco's license application is being treated as a negotiation by all involved when in reality it should be a process. Two words. Campbell Ogilvie. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Any truth in the story that they want the dual contracts investigation dropped and the reasoning given as to why it should be dropped 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 If Rangers refuse to accept the conditions, citing no EBTs indemnity, that's up to them and their lookout... but it cannot be torpedoed simply due to SPL being spiteful that SFL won't give them their TV rights on terms SFL find unacceptable. That's madness. I know it's madness, but it seems to be the way. After all that's gone on, are you honestly surprised that it's come down to something like this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weirdcal Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 (edited) They flew a banner ,,.. SO WHAT ????? bingo, on the f**king money, i never understand people who complain about tv shows etc, if you dont like it, dont f**king look at it. simple enough i dont like house music, so i dont go to places that play it i dont like fords so i dont drive one i dont like big brother so i dont watch it wait a minute, 4 showed twilight, better complain it isnt real vampires.. what the actual f**k ? 1000 channels and you feel the need to complain ?? edit: to add astrisk on sweary words Edited July 21, 2012 by weirdcal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umbungo1874 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Any truth in the story that they want the dual contracts investigation dropped and the reasoning given as to why it should be dropped The SPL want an independent commission to rule on whether Rangers broke the rules during previous campaigns by paying players with so called side contracts. They are due to hand over their findings to that commission on 10 August. But Rangers fear an independent commission could strip them of titles and believe they have already been sufficiently punished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 I know it's madness, but it seems to be the way. After all that's gone on, are you honestly surprised that it's come down to something like this? I guess not . I suppose I'd hoped, after the "parachute to SFL1" farce and scandal, that everyone would move on. Instead it seems some parties are still at war with others and still trying to shaft others. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wunfellaff Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 OrcTalk............... I was out with one of the staff today after the 5-1 friendly win and he was telling me a few wee bits and pieces about some stuff that's going on at Ibrox just now so i thought i would share. Some of it might be old news but it was all new to me. The £800,000 for Davis will be payed over 4 years. £250,000 1st year £250,000 2nd year then £150,000 and £150,000. 4 or 5 of the younger lads in the squad have been offered 4 year deals but he thinks Lewis McLeod is so good we will be lucky to be able to hold onto him until the start of the season. Regarding the John brown fiasco, he said Ally can't come out and slaughter Brown for the way he is acting in case Brown does end up owning the club. It would then make Allys position impossible but he thinks he will come out in the next week and urge fans to buy season tickets now that the league and the pricing issues have been sorted out. Ian Black is wanting £10,000 a week to sign for us which we will probably give him because Bocanegra will leave and free up £20,000 a week. Dean Shiels has told Rangers he wants to sign for us, We didn't go to him. Also mentioned another few positive things regarding money and tv deals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xj2011 Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 The SPL want an independent commission to rule on whether Rangers broke the rules during previous campaigns by paying players with so called side contracts. They are due to hand over their findings to that commission on 10 August. But Rangers fear an independent commission could strip them of titles and believe they have already been sufficiently punished. so basically they are admitting guilt? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macshimmy Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 THE OFFICIAL RANGERS LIQUIDATION RAP The Liquidation Rap Wear headphones for full effect. Hope you enjoy it, muhfuckers. Nice. Sack yer drummer tho. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_of_licht Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 What the hell is cockwomble playing at? Why would the SPL be entitled to Rangers TV revenues? Because the Big Face must stay open 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.