Rangers' Wee Spot in Europe - Season 2023/24

[carpetmonster]

1 minute ago, Henrik's tongue said:

I know where you’re coming from, mate. My 8 year old daughter asks me to play Paul Heaton tracks when she’s in the car with me. It makes me genuinely proud, weirdly, as I have been a fan of his for 30+ years.
 

She fucking hates Celtic though. And Rangers too. Football in general actually. The wee shite.

The time I've most beamed at the wee one was when she was 5 or 6 and we signed her up for an intro to piano class. 10 kids and the teacher starts asking them what their favorite song is. After 4 'Baby Shark' in a row, she comes out with 'Sleater-Kinney' which made the guy pause for a second and then go 'wow. cool'. 

She's done nothing remotely adorable in the 2/3 years since, mind. 

[Melanius Mullarkey]

1 hour ago, dorlomin said:

 fantastic season. 

One I will remember the rest of my life. 

 

Same.

[Melanius Mullarkey]

49 minutes ago, KnightswoodVanBear said:

Never felt as gutted after a game of football in my life.  I think it's worse this time than 2008 as we really could have won that game.

Proud of the team for the achievement of getting there, and I know that eventually this sick feeling I have will give way to a better feeling about the whole thing.  I can't explain how good it felt watching the game with me wee boy sitting there with his Rangers top, hat and jammie trousers on.  Seeing how caught up in the thing he was when we scored.

Sake, i'm tearing up again now. 

Reported to Childline.

[Luddite]

4 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

This new club were admitted to the bottom tier.

Genuine enquiry to anyone well-versed on the details… how were they able to avoid starting out in the real bottom tier (Regional leagues) ahead of the likes of Darvel and Auchinleck Talbot?

I was under the impression the new club didn’t have enough years of audited accounts to gain SFA membership.

Is that incorrect?

[AsimButtHitsASix]

2 minutes ago, Luddite said:

Genuine enquiry to anyone well-versed on the details… how were they able to avoid starting out in the real bottom tier (Regional leagues) ahead of the likes of Darvel and Auchinleck Talbot?

I was under the impression the new club didn’t have enough years of audited accounts to gain SFA membership.

Is that incorrect?

The pyramid wasn't in place at the time.

What should have happened was the SPFL should have had an open application process for Club 42. However, by the SPFL's own rules, Sevco wouldn't have been allowed to apply. There was a bit of rumour on here some agreements were made behind closed doors that Spartans, Preston, Cove, etc wouldn't apply or raise a fuss about it in return for the pyramid being rushed through (and it did appear the very next season).

Would have been awesome if they did lose out on a vote to Spartans and had to join the SoSFL for a season waiting for the Lowland League to start up tho. 

[Luddite]

2 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

The pyramid wasn't in place at the time.

What should have happened was the SPFL should have had an open application process for Club 42. However, by the SPFL's own rules, Sevco wouldn't have been allowed to apply. There was a bit of rumour on here some agreements were made behind closed doors that Spartans, Preston, Cove, etc wouldn't apply or raise a fuss about it in return for the pyramid being rushed through (and it did appear the very next season).

Would have been awesome if they did lose out on a vote to Spartans and had to join the SoSFL for a season waiting for the Lowland League to start up tho. 

Thanks for the detailed answer

Ive been checked out of the comings and going’s of football since about 2010 so I missed all the day-to-day of old Rangers demise.

[Luddite]

2 hours ago, Clown Job said:

Poor fans, too tired to create an atmosphere 

 

“Come 9 o’clock at night the first thing you’re going to do is not sing”

This man says words that make sense

[Owsley]

3 hours ago, wastecoatwilly said:

It would've been even better after Kunt scored to get it chopped aff for the ball going out play M8.

As delighted as I am with the outcome, I feel I have to point out the ball did not go out of play, despite that photo. There was a camera angle from behind the crosser and some of the ball is clearly overhanging the line. Never rely on a photo unless it is absolutely 100% obvious.

Edited May 19, 2022 by Owsley

[Lurkst]

10 minutes ago, Luddite said:

Thanks for the detailed answer

Ive been checked out of the comings and going’s of football since about 2010 so I missed all the day-to-day of old Rangers demise.

If you've a spare few weeks there's a thread on here that covers the matter in some depth.

 

[jagfox]

50 minutes ago, Henrik's tongue said:

I know where you’re coming from, mate. My 8 year old daughter asks me to play Paul Heaton tracks when she’s in the car with me. It makes me genuinely proud, weirdly, as I have been a fan of his for 30+ years.
 

She fucking hates Celtic though. And Rangers too. Football in general actually. The wee shite.

What a girl haha

[Mr Pikey]

Good to see fans of other teams sharing the joys of football  with kids . Its one of life's great pleasures.

[Luddite]

11 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

If you've a spare few weeks there's a thread on here that covers the matter in some depth.

 

Got it…will check it out

Thanks

[Florentine_Pogen]

^^^ Scaffolders should stick to scaffolding.

[Luddite]

https://theathletic.com/3297724/2022/05/17/rangers-europa-league-final-letters/?amp=1
 

Bahahahaha!
 

What is this pish?? An article from The Atlantic with letters from Rangers* players mummies and daddies ahead of the Europa League final? 
 

I remember when The New York Times sent Willie Miller on his way to face Real Madrid with a letter from his granny 

[AyrAtlanta]

8 minutes ago, Luddite said:

https://theathletic.com/3297724/2022/05/17/rangers-europa-league-final-letters/?amp=1
 

Bahahahaha!
 

What is this pish?? An article from The Atlantic with letters from Rangers* players mummies and daddies ahead of the Europa League final? 
 

I remember when The New York Times sent Willie Miller on his way to face Real Madrid with a letter from his granny 

They read like something you’d hear at a funeral. Cringeworthy

[cyderspaceman]

4 hours ago, Hedgecutter said:

Fine.

ENORMOUSNESS

It's a bee in my bunnet.            ( So is 'myriads of' or 'myriad of'.)

'immensity' is good too.

Edited May 19, 2022 by cyderspaceman

[bennett]

1 hour ago, Florentine_Pogen said:

 

MODS, NOT WISHING TO DERAIL THREAD - INTERESTED PARTIES CAN COPY AND READ AT LEISURE - I WILL REMOVE THIS POST IN AN HOUR OR SO.

Clyde Football Club Statement: SFL Meeting
Wed, 4th Jul 2012 12:34pm
The club sent two directors to attend the meeting of the SFL clubs yesterday and they have reported back to the Board. The meeting and conversations covered the best part of 5 hours but there were only a few overarching themes.

The clear message portrayed is that Scottish Football is in a very dark place indeed and there is simply no good solution to what is now a structural problem that has gone beyond a one dimensional issue of where Rangers should play next season. No matter what happens now there is going to be enormous fallout across the Scottish game. Whether some good can be extracted from the impending mess will depend entirely on the SPL clubs, guided by the currently absent leadership of the SFA.

Neil Doncaster wanted only one thing from the meeting, to get a steer from the SFL clubs whether they would allow Rangers into SFL1. He talked the clubs through a detailed explanation of where the SPL clubs would lose £16m next season if Rangers were not entered to the top division of the SFL. This was delivered as a matter of fact, it was a "reality". It seems that most, if not all, major sponsors of the SPL have exit clauses if either of the 'Old Firm' are not within the SPL. The total figure was not new, but the detail behind the number and its impact on individual clubs in the SPL was set out clearly. There were challenges made regarding the flip side of saving the central income from sponsors and media, the obvious impact of loss of supporters to the game who have strongly voiced their intent. Supporter reaction has not been factored in, again there are realities, the SPL clubs are waiting on their Sky cheques in August and clearly that was more important. Nowhere in the presentation was account taken on the impact to the finances of clubs, and more importantly the relevance of the game, should supporters stay at home.

The consequential impact on the SFL from the presentation was that the SFL would lose its entitlement to circa £2m per annum from the Settlement Agreement put together to compensate the SFL for the SPL breakaway, this was made very clear by Neil Doncaster. He told the clubs that if the SPL didn't have the money then they could not pay the SFL. The reality however, which was clear from the detailed figures, is that the SPL, whilst losing an enormous amount of funding, would have the cash to make payment; it is just that the SPL would not meet the legal obligation to the SFL as the cash would be used to finance the SPL teams.

The undeniable statement made on behalf of the SPL is commercially understandable. The SPL would not allow £16m to flow out of their coffers, the impact would be too catastrophic for the SPL clubs to contemplate and as such the only options are that Rangers enter SFL1 or, as a less attractive backstop, a breakaway SPL2 will be formed. There is no prospect, from an SPL point of view, that SFL3 can be allowed to happen.

Neil Doncaster was delivering a very unpalatable proposition and he did it clearly and effectively, hence the representatives of Clyde Football Club understood that the only thing that mattered was the impact on SPL clubs from the loss of money from media and sponsors.

It was to the credit of every SFL club, and probably to the surprise of Neil Doncaster, that nobody asked him to improve on the £1m offer.

The SFL clubs were given a steer for themselves by Neil Doncaster, if the SFL could not tell him how they might vote, then he would expect the SPL clubs not to vote at their meeting either.

There were a few new things learned in the meeting, not least that the rules of the SFL would allow any club accepted into the SFL, by a simple majority, to be placed in any division. The rules do not state, nor imply, that they must join at the bottom tier, only custom and practice around good governance and integrity has seen teams join in the bottom tier. In addition, the attendees at the meeting were left in absolutely no doubt whatsoever by Stewart Regan that if the SPL clubs voted to allow a Newco into the SPL then it would be blocked by the SFA refusing to transfer the SFA membership. It was however caveated well enough to make it less than an absolute statement. The meeting was full of implied actions and outcomes, the use of clever language when delivering the speeches allows anyone to defend with ‘that is not what I said'. However, nobody will have left the meeting with anything other than the very clear messages being put across. Denials of the substance of the message being delivered do not assist anyone in this absolutely dreadful situation.

There will be no winners. Any level of integrity for the sport will be lost by one outcome and financial collapse, we are told, will fall upon the SPL with the other. Sadly, the SFA and SPL have decided that whilst they say they are looking for a collaborative solution, they have very clearly made sure that by their own inaction that the blame will sit with the SFL - no matter what the outcome. The Board of the SFL are being put under intolerable pressure by the other bodies looking to avoid the implications of properly applying their own governance procedures.

In summary, the SFA implication is that there will be no entry to the SPL. The SPL implication is that it therefore has to be SFL1 with a bit of restructure, or an SPL2 with the rest of the SFL cut adrift. There were no other options. Whilst Stewart Regan said that the SFA did not favour an SPL2, there was no equivalent abhorrence of that proposal as was attached to the proposal for a Newco in the SPL, leaving the implication that the door remains wide open for the SPL to secure their £16m with or without the SFL.

The Board of the club will consider the feedback from its representatives and also the outcomes of the next few days and will keep its supporters fully appraised, but in the meantime see no reason to amend any previous comment.

Clyde Statement 10-07-12

The board of Clyde Football Club met last night to consider how it might approach the resolutions (see below) to be voted on at the SFL meeting on Friday 13th July. This update is to inform our owners and supporters and hopefully explain some of the complexities that face the club when carefully and objectively considering how we might vote. We hope that by being as clear as possible about the difficulties surrounding this situation that the people able to support the process act swiftly to do so.

The overwhelming reality is that we are being asked to make one of the most important decisions for Scottish Football in a vacuum devoid of factual information, that vacuum having been filled with unhelpful rhetoric and scaremongering by the chief executives of the SFA and SPL.

We therefore looked at what we were being asked to vote on, how it fitted with the principles of the sport, and what information we might need to inform a logical decision in context of the current reality.

It was clear that the resolutions marked a clear departure from all previous process and custom and practice when considering admitting a team to the SFL, albeit operating within the rules of the SFL. It was in that context which we considered the resolutions.

In reality, the customary principles of sport were not at the forefront of the resolutions.We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement.

To assist the SFL clubs to take decisions in the right manner then the external threat should be removed by the SPL clubs, confirming to the SFL that they have not and will not instruct the SPL to breach the Settlement Agreement.Consideration was then given to Resolution 1 which we concluded required to be reworded to be explicit that entry was to SFL3. The reason for this is that once entered to the SFL in the manner proposed under Resolution 1, we understand that it is within the power of the Board of the SFL to place a club into any league of their choosing. We believe that, due to the intolerable pressure placed on the SFL board to date by external parties, this resolution should be explicit to avoid the Board coming under pressure from either the SFA or SPL in the event that Resolution 2 is rejected. It is also our opinion that Resolution 1 being explicit sits more appropriately with Resolution 2 which in itself is explicit about where any club might play.In terms of Resolution 1, whether reworded or not, it seemed inconceivable to the Board of Clyde that absolutely no information whatsoever has been provided to support the resolution. This is clearly a matter of haste and again driven by an external agenda, perhaps because Sevco have not lodged an application to join the SFL then they have not submitted any information. Whilst we have accepted that this is being treated as a special case and we are willing to run with this, it simply was not possible to conclude that we could make any decision at this time. The matter is made worse because of the extent of uncertainty which hangs over Sevco. There is no need to prepare an exhaustive list of the issues as they are well publicised, however the extent of outstanding sanctions that may or may not be levied against a club which has yet to obtain SFA membership, together with the increasing number of possible commercial and legal challenges to the transactions to date simply presents a significant risk to the ability of the club to fulfil its fixtures in any league.

Given that some of these matters are in the hands of the governing bodies it seems inexplicable that they are left hanging. We are clear that for the good of the game that we would want a swift and positive conclusion that would see Rangers Football Club taking part in the game again and we would wish to be able to support a Resolution that saw them entered to SFL3. However, until we receive enough information to inform such a decision then we are being pushed into a corner which would actually leave any club making a logical decision arrive at the conclusion that Resolution 1 should not be supported. The SFA could assist the process by transferring the SFA membership to Sevco prior to the Friday meeting if they have satisfied themselves of fit and proper tests and have carried out their own diligence on the viability of the club and the various legal challenges.Resolution 2 suffers from the same issues as Resolution 1, in that no information of any sort about Sevco, not even whether it will obtain SFA membership, leaves no possibility of making a decision about entry to the SFL based on facts or logic. Clearly it is incumbent on all the governing bodies to make available all factual information they have available if they truly want this process to have any chance of being recovered from the current chaos. At the very least the business plan for Sevco and any other information that led the SPL clubs to arrive at a decision should be made available to the SFL clubs, and not with inappropriately short notice, although that point has as good as passed. Resolution 2 was where the challenge to sporting integrity arose. It was impossible to engage with this concept without continually bearing in mind that the SFA had already undermined the prospects for any integrity to be maintained by making it clear that failure to deal with the admission of a newco to SFL3 would be a dereliction of duty. In effect posting notice that no matter what decision is taken by the SFL clubs to administer their league, the SFA would not tolerate anything other than SFL 1, an equivalent point having been made by Neil Doncaster on behalf of the SPL clubs.

The stated position of the SFA and SPL chief executives means that, whilst this club can have faith in David Longmuir to do all in his power to deliver a new combined structure that meets the objectives of Resolution 2, we have no faith in the parties that the new arrangements would be negotiated with. Their behaviour to date is evidence enough for us. We should not be disingenuous on our own position in terms of the question of trading sporting integrity for transformational change to the way the game is governed that is posed by Resolution 2. We have said previously that there would be no winners and that compromise would be required at some point. With this in mind, had we worked through this process and seen positive collaborative behaviour from the leaders of the SFA and SPL and we were challenged with backing Resolution 2 in exchange for revolutionary change that would truly benefit the game as a whole, then we would have engaged with that. As it stands, we have no information on the proposals other than that distributed in advance of the meeting last week and no confidence in the parties that will control the process outside of the SFL. As such we would vote no to Resolution 2.Resolution 3, as many have pointed out this resolution seems presumptuous as no invitation has been issued from the SPL to either club. Again, this arises because of the external pressures, the haste and the failure of other bodies to complete their own processes. As things stand, whilst Sevco/Newco was not voted into the SPL, it seems that the SPL still has 12 members based on the reported voting at the SPL meeting last week, albeit one of whom is in liquidation. It seems to make more sense that the SPL complete their processes and make the appropriate invitation for a club to join the SPL. We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.In summary, the complete absence of information on Sevco Scotland Ltd renders it impossible to vote with any logic in favour of any of the Resolutions. The default in these circumstances would unfortunately be to vote against. We hope and trust that this unacceptable situation will be resolved swiftly and will allow Clyde Football Club to support Resolution 1 from an informed position and will see Rangers Football Club playing in SFL3.

We see Resolution 2 as a matter of trust and it would take a change of personnel and attitude for us to be confident that David Longmuir would be entering discussions with a group of people committed to a collaborative process in a spirit of genuine partnership.In the current circumstances our only decision could be to vote against Resolution 2. Subject to a satisfactory outcome on Resolution 1 we would support Resolution 3.The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:-

(i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.

(ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13.

(iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting.

Fri, 13th Jul 2012 9:14am

The proposals to change the league structure, its governance and distribution model are indeed for the good of the game. What is not for the good of the game are the circumstances in which it has been proposed. It is only on the table for short-term financial reasons. Neil Doncaster told the SFL clubs that the SPL would not allow Rangers to join the Third Division as the loss of £16m would not be countenanced, he is also on record as having said that a 16 team league would cost £20m, therefore we can hardly have confidence that the focus on finance will allow these proposals to come to life.

What is also not for the good of the game is 30 clubs being asked to vote knowing that a vote for Resolution 1 has a very high chance of being ignored by the SFA attempting to avoid any suggestion of what they perceive to be a dereliction of their duty. Such statements undermine basic democracy. Equally, voting blind to admit an organisation who has no membership of the SFA at a time when there is no vacancy in the SFL is not for the good of the game. Almost everything about this long run process is not for the good of the game.

It would not be for the good of the game to compound the problems of a club by refusing entry to the SFL for Rangers Football Club. We will therefore take that leap of faith and vote in favour of Resolution 1 despite not a single word of reasoning having been provided to support the Resolution.

On the basis that short-term financial drivers have not been for the good of the game in the past, then we will not support Resolution 2. It has unfortunately enmeshed positive change for the game with a proposal to admit Sevco Scotland Ltd to the First Division for the purposes of shoring up the short-term financial model which has to date failed The Game.

The interests of the game will be served by decisions being made genuinely for the long-term benefit of the whole of Scottish Football, and not short term benefit for a few clubs.

Our decision has at times had to defy logic and question our own short term interests as others focus on theirs. Given that the SPL and SFA have signalled a clear intention to act against any decision that might result in Sevco Scotland Ltd being admitted to the Third Division, then the limited logic left in this process points to them as believing they have the monopoly of wisdom on what is good for the game. We can expect that, no matter what the SFL clubs decide, Sevco Scotland will not be playing in the Third Division in the coming season. How more short-termism can be for the good of the game really does defy logic.

When the dust settles on this affair, it would be good to think that we can all get back to watching football. Sadly, no matter how it turns out today, some will not return to our game.

Sevco mate.

[Florentine_Pogen]

1 minute ago, bennett said:

Sevco mate.

Please direct your complaint to Clyde FC.

[Henrik's tongue]

3 hours ago, KnightswoodVanBear said:

Never felt as gutted after a game of football in my life.  I think it's worse this time than 2008 as we really could have won that game.

Proud of the team for the achievement of getting there, and I know that eventually this sick feeling I have will give way to a better feeling about the whole thing.  I can't explain how good it felt watching the game with me wee boy sitting there with his Rangers top, hat and jammie trousers on.  Seeing how caught up in the thing he was when we scored.

Sake, i'm tearing up again now. 

 

 

2 hours ago, Henrik's tongue said:

I know where you’re coming from, mate. My 8 year old daughter asks me to play Paul Heaton tracks when she’s in the car with me. It makes me genuinely proud, weirdly, as I have been a fan of his for 30+ years.
 

She fucking hates Celtic though. And Rangers too. Football in general actually. The wee shite.

 

@btb red dotted both these posts.

I can only assume he is infertile.

[falkirkthebigclub]

15 hours ago, RawB93 said: