PeeTeeJag Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Remember this from April 2011? McCoist insisted that if Rangers are punished on the basis of a FARE report, the club has the right to know more about the evidence submitted against them. "I don't know enough about it," said McCoist. "I don't know anything about this organisation - but if they're responsible for giving us a two game home ban, we're entitled to know who they are, who it is that has reported on it and what the report was. "I think that's the least we're entitled to. "We certainly have a small minority of our support that obviously don't hold their own values to our club's great traditions. "All we can do is appeal to them, ask them to stop doing it because it's having a major effect on the team and the club. "But I'm not telling them something that hasn't been said to them for years. "We've been preaching that we don't want these songs sung, because in this day and age, they're not correct. "For us to move forward, we have to leave it behind us." Entitled to know who they are? That sounds very familiar. Small minority? Aye right. Major effect on the team and club? Eh, not as big as it was gonna get!!! In this day and age, they're not correct? Were they ever??? Move forward, leave it behind us? Isn't that what your trying not to do Sally? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Is Ian Black actually waiting to sign for Rangers in the 3rd? If true he is either a heavy duty currant; or just shit and can't get a decent club. I see that self proclaimed Championship player Garry Kenneth turned out for Airdrie yesterday as a trialist. It was mentioned that Black had to undergo an operation (on his knee I believe) which Hearts weren't willing to pay for along with his wages thus he was released at the end of last season. He has the operation but no clubs will take a chance on a player who clearly has enough to compete at least to Championship level. Mix that with Sevco having a transfer embargo (if they accept the SFA licence) then anyone who signs up now will no doubt be guaranteed at least a 3 year contract (and probably on decent enough wages). With all that in mind, it shines some light on why Black is desperate to play for Sevco. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 McCoist insisted that if Rangers are punished on the basis of a FARE report, the club has the right to know more about the evidence submitted against them. So they wish evidence regarding FARE but not evidence regarding EBT. Funny that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hotelandywalker Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 You forgot the greed of the SFL clubs being the only thing stopping this all from reaching a satisfactory conclusion. If anyone else posted this then I would've read it as a poor attempt at humour. Your previous logic makes me unsure 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 They only need an SFA licence, and as things stand I believe all the SFA are asking for is the transfer embargo to be put in place. The SPL/SFL media rights and EBT investigations should be completely separate issues and shouldn't affect the SFA licence. It's Sevco itself that is stopping their participation in the 3rd by demanding something from the SPL. They are signing their own death warrant when the path to play in the division is open. Personally if the season deadline comes and Sevco still haven't gained the SFA licence then the remaining place should be put up to a vote in the same way previous entrants to the 3rd were handled with whichever team playing in the 2013/14 season with this season seeing an 11 team 3rd division. According to the reports I've read it requires a five-way agreement before the licence can be granted to Sevco. The most logical course of action is to invite applications for the vacant place and move forward without them. However, the greed of the SFL chairmen means that ain't gonna happen. This is why the relatively weak cards that Cockwomble is playing could prove to be the winning hand. After all the SPL is the only one with nothing at stake in this game so have nothing to lose by dragging it out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 If anyone else posted this then I would've read it as a poor attempt at humour. Your previous logic makes me unsure It's a fact. If the SFL chairmen weren't so desperate to have Sevco in their league the SPL wouldn't have them over a barrel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 According to the reports I've read it requires a five-way agreement before the licence can be granted to Sevco. The most logical course of action is to invite applications for the vacant place and move forward without them. However, the greed of the SFL chairmen means that ain't gonna happen. This is why the relatively weak cards that Cockwomble is playing could prove to be the winning hand. After all the SPL is the only one with nothing at stake in this game so have nothing to lose by dragging it out. What have i missed over the last few days ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beermonkey Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It's a fact. If the SFL chairmen weren't so desperate to have Sevco in their league the SPL wouldn't have them over a barrel. You on the wind up ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 You on the wind up ? Yes he is. A particularly shite wind up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 As he should. In fact I'd expect it to be one of the explicit roles defined in his contract. Absolutely. But the point remains, you can't blame individual clubs for this rather odd claim for SFL TV revenue. My take on things is similar to Ric's. Rangers demanding no investigation into Double Contracts seems to be the main stumbling block to them getting a license. Which leads me to think its a deliberate ploy by Green, and Rangers will spend a year in the wilderness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 What have i missed over the last few days ? Probably a whole lotta subtext, why? What impact do you think it has on the SPL if the 3rd division can't start with twelve teams, Spartans become an SFL side or the league is held up because of courtroom wrangling? The money rangers brought in is gone already so losing that twice isn't really much of an issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reluctant Hero Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Mix that with Sevco having a transfer embargo (if they accept the SFA licence) then anyone who signs up now will no doubt be guaranteed at least a 3 year contract (and probably on decent enough wages). Is that the case with the new Rangers though? If I was their accountants I would have extreme reservations about giving long contracts on any kind of money until the financial situation has stabalised. If Rangers start off by promising long term decent contracts then they might be on a one way road to administration again. Indeed, there may not be a financial institution willing to finance any kind of overdraft/loan until they get back to the SPL (if they ever do). I would be tempted to hand out a pay per play contract for the players that haven't TUPE'd over. That way, until they see what sort of crowd they will be expected to get every week and other revenue, then they can keep some control over costs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) You on the wind up ? No. Greed is the driving factor here. Absolutely. But the point remains, you can't blame individual clubs for this rather odd claim for SFL TV revenue. My take on things is similar to Ric's. Rangers demanding no investigation into Double Contracts seems to be the main stumbling block to them getting a license. Which leads me to think its a deliberate ploy by Green, and Rangers will spend a year in the wilderness. It's no stranger than the SFL demanding money to expedite a solution back in 1998. If people wish to get this moving quickly they're going to have to grease the wheels. The SFL fans can shout no fair but it's the business model their clubs survive by. Edited July 22, 2012 by The big chair 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Absolutely. But the point remains, you can't blame individual clubs for this rather odd claim for SFL TV revenue. My take on things is similar to Ric's. Rangers demanding no investigation into Double Contracts seems to be the main stumbling block to them getting a license. Which leads me to think its a deliberate ploy by Green, and Rangers will spend a year in the wilderness. McCoist said that they haven't agreed to the transfer ban although the SFA said they have so they are still a long way to agreeing to entry terms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) If spl can't pay the 2 million pounds then the sfl should put spl into administration. Simple Edited July 22, 2012 by somner`s love child 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve McQueen Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 In Istanbul yesterday guy in a bar asks where I was from. His answer to Scotland was "Glasgow Rangers, kaput" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 It's a fact. If the SFL chairmen weren't so desperate to have Sevco in their league the SPL wouldn't have them over a barrel. This is a wind up or you`ve escaped from your carer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 22, 2012 Author Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) In Istanbul yesterday guy in a bar asks where I was from. His answer to Scotland was "Glasgow Rangers, kaput" In late May I was in Dallas and Las Vegas. A Belgian guy in Vegas pointed at the St Mirren baseball cap I was wearing and said "St Mirren? Scotland? You better than those cheating Rangers!" I like Belgium. Edited July 22, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 This is a wind up or you`ve escaped from your carer. Why didn't the SFL invite applications for the vacant league place? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
somner`s love child Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 That doesn't really address the issue, that without a licence newco cant play competitive fixtures, does it? Serious questions (I`ll play ball even if I think you`re trolling)...................... Would the SPL prefer Sevco in the league in three years time or no Sevco at all? What would be the best option for the business model? What possibly makes you think the SPL would let Sevco die? 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.