Toonpack 9170 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 You reckon any of the players will stick around in Div 3? How are they going to afford to pay the players too? Probably not bother with Tax and NI, that usually works for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Probably not bother with Tax and NI, that usually works for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Probably not bother with Tax and NI, that usually works for them. It was a winning formula for them like. Topped off with the fact that every 10 years they can just write off their losses by taking a relegation to Division 1 and getting promoted straigt back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Yep Fans in uproar (yet again) Full text of the meeting invite (from Thomo's blog) Dangerous game, many SFL chairmen are fucking foaming, a vote of NO to number one would sink Sevco. Subject: SFL Special General Meeting – Friday, 13th July, 2012 Dear Sir or Madam, NOTICE OF SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING – SCOTTISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE Notice is hereby given that a Special General Meeting of The Scottish Football League will be held within the Bell/Baird Suite on the fifth floor of Hampden Park, Glasgow on Friday, 13th July, 2012 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving the following proposals:- (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. In accordance with the terms of SFL Rule 53, your club must send one representative to this meeting and I would be most grateful if you could advise me of the name of your representative by return. A buffet lunch will be served at the conclusion of the meeting. Kind regards, David A. Longmuir Chief Executive, SFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitman 2204 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 The buffet lunch is the most important part of the meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baggio 0 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 (edited) The Scottish FA has not granted international clearance for the transfers of five players who declined to move their contracts from the old to the "newco" Rangers and found other clubs. The latest twist in a summer of turmoil and uncertainty around the Ibrox club means FIFA is likely to grant temporary clearance for the quintet while it considers a final and definitive ruling on the situation. With Charles Green's Rangers seeking compensation for players moving away, the SFA declined to grant clearance for the transfers of Steven Naismith to Everton, Steven Whittaker to Norwich, Steven Davis to Southampton, Kyle Lafferty to Sion and Jamie Ness to Stoke. A club signing a player requests clearance through its own football association, which then contacts the association representing the country played in by the player being signed, but this scenario is complicated by the "newco" Rangers not yet being members of the Scottish FA. And although Green is attempting to secure compensation for players moving on, the 11 to have left Rangers in the summer were advised by players' union lawyers that the situation makes them free agents. The "newco" owner, however, claims the players are in breach of contract and wrote to clubs in the English leagues to inform them that this was how he saw the situation. http://www.espn.co.u...tml?CMP=OTC-RSS Edited July 9, 2012 by Baggio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CabayeAye Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Could the SFA be any more biased towards Rangers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat 0 Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 posted by someone else up here: SFL New Club Application 2012 On Friday 13th 2012 the SFL, under pressure from the SFA and SPL will vote to admit a new club to the League. Listed below are clubs who may have applied, but only one is actually being considered. We all know which one , But Why? Previous Applicants Edinburgh City FC Formed: 1966 Stadium Capacity: 16,500 Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Spartans FC Formed: 1951 Stadium Capacity: Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Cove Rangers FC Formed: 1922 Stadium Capacity: 2500 Current League: Highland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Preston Athletic FC Formed: 1945 Stadium Capacity: 4000 Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Huntly FC Formed: 1928 Stadium Capacity: 4500 Current League: Highland League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Gala Fairydean Formed: Stadium Capacity: 2000 Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Whitehill Welfare FC Formed: 1953 Stadium Capacity: 4000 Current League: East Of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Other Applicants Sevco Formed: A month ago Stadium Capacity: Where's the deeds? Current League: None, not actually a football club yet. 3 Years Accounts: No, formed a month ago. Falsely claim to be a continuation of a club which abandoned £134 million of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeazesMag 0 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 topcat and toondon. Whatever the rights and wrongs of all this, do you really think that the SPL or Scottish Football would be better off without Rangers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17067 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Finanacially, far better off with newco Rangers in the first division and able to gain promotion next season. For the integrity of the football authorities in Scotalnd and also morally, the newco shouldnt be playing in any league next season. 134million pounds worth of cheating over a quarter of a century just written off? Makes Scottish football as a competition completley redundant, rather than just a "joke" as it has been for the last decade or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flap 0 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Can't they come up with some better names? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat 0 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 (edited) topcat and toondon. Whatever the rights and wrongs of all this, do you really think that the SPL or Scottish Football would be better off without Rangers ? I'm quite nonplussed about all the media/SFA/rangers led nonsense about 'financial armaggeddon' and 'meltdown' - on the face of it my club (in SFL1) would be denied just £60k payment so would cut its' cloth to suit as many clubs already have - we already have a wage structure in the region of just £300-600 per week and have lived within our means since we nearly went t*ts up in '97 (round about the same time as NUFC). For instance last year our club needed to raise £100k and did so within a few weeks via additional sponsorship so the £60k figure certainly won't be a ballbuster. It might though have a bigger effect on SFL3 clubs with crumbling infrastructure and unmanageable debts - the kind of debts that could be wiped out if the blue filth spend a year in their division and they get a few home games in against them. With other wee diddy teams like us who've lived within our means for decades, the prospect of having one team circumvent the rules, fail to pay tax and NI, rack up £135m of losses and walk out of it with a debt free club parachuted into SFL1 (making our league a bit of a pointless season) is simply not acceptable. Edited July 10, 2012 by topcat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17067 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I'm quite nonplussed about all the media/SFA/rangers led nonsense about 'financial armaggeddon' and 'meltdown' - on the face of it my club (in SFL1) would be denied just £60k payment so would cut its' cloth to suit as many clubs already have - we already have a wage structure in the region of just £300-600 per week and have lived within our means since we nearly went t*ts up in '97 (round about the same time as NUFC). For instance last year our club needed to raise £100k and did so within a few weeks via additional sponsorship so the £60k figure certainly won't be a ballbuster. It might though have a bigger effect on SFL3 clubs with crumbling infrastructure and unmanageable debts - the kind of debts that could be wiped out if the blue filth spend a year in their division and they get a few home games in against them. With other wee diddy teams like us who've lived within our means for decades, the prospect of having one team circumvent the rules, fail to pay tax and NI, rack up £135m of losses and walk out of it with a debt free club parachuted into SFL1 (making our league a bit of a pointless season) is simply not acceptable. Spot on, apart from things going tits up for us as well around 97...we finished 2nd in the league that year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ugly Mackems 133 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I doubt Rangers will be playing anywhere next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat 0 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 A good statement today from Clyde FC about the unfolding stitch-up Club Statement: SFL Special General Meeting Tue, 10th Jul 2012 6:17pm 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon_don 0 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 topcat and toondon. Whatever the rights and wrongs of all this, do you really think that the SPL or Scottish Football would be better off without Rangers ? It's a tricky one. I've thought for a while that the best thing that could possibly happen to Scottish football would be if the Old Firm ceased to exist overnight, but to have only one of them makes it less clear. I'm not naive, I realise that TV contracts will be renegotiated, and sponsorship money will decrease. Belts will have to be tightened and there will probably a decrease in quality (although it's not like the standard could get significantly worse). I'm also aware that Celtic will win the league for the next few years, and a one-horse race looks bad from an outside point of view. On the flip side though, the argument that it will be total armageddon is clearly nonsense. The £16 million loss figure that the SPL have been shouting about is based on there being no TV deal at all, and virtually every sponsor pulling out. That's not going to happen and it's needless scaremongering to suggest it. The same goes for the argument that the SPL will be like the League of Ireland without them. Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen and Dundee United are several times bigger than every Irish team. The average attendance in the Scottish 1st Division is higher than the Irish Premier League, and more people went to Kilmarnock v Ayr United in the Scottish League Cup than went to the Irish Cup Final. It's a stupid comparison. Initially at least, I think there will be a surge in attendance from fans of the other clubs. Aberdeen recently got over the 9,000 mark for season ticket sales, which bearing in mind the average attendance at Pittodrie for the last 2 seasons was only just 9,000 (and the atrocious football and relegation battles the fans have endured for the last 3 years), is a real show of support of the club's stance. Dundee United have also announced strong season ticket sales since the SPL vote. No Rangers also offers the other clubs a greater chance of some tangible success. The cups are wide open now, as is European qualification. You could even make an argument that it makes a title challenge (stop laughing at the back) by a non-Old Firm club more possible. As it was, if you finished in the top 6 you'd have to play Rangers and Celtic 8 times over the course of a season, making it virtually impossible to get anywhere near them. Without Rangers, you don't need a side good enough to go toe-to-toe with Celtic to finish relatively close to them, you just need to assemble a team good enough to consistently beat the other 10 clubs. Again, I'm not stupid, I realise that this is unilkey, but it's not entirely outwith the realms of possibility. To be honest I don't know if it will be better or worse, but what I do know is that Rangers have lied, bullied and cheated on a grand scale, and have been so catastrophically mismanaged that the original club has gone out of business entirely. If rules have to be rewritten or ignored entirely for a club like that, just because of 'commercial pressures,' then we might as well all give up and go home. Oh, one final thing, I'm not Scottish, I've just been living here for the past 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9170 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Oh, one final thing, I'm not Scottish, I've just been living here for the past 4 years. Y'in oil and gas? Was up there 7 years until last year, now doon sooth, love Aberdeen though, thinking of maybe manoeuvring back there next year. Also home of the best curry house I've ever been in anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 4365 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Just reading that the administrators reckon that 2.75m of the 5.5m was to pay for the players contracts and registrations. That may be okay in the sense that a clubs assets is its players but that does mean that everything else including Ibrox was valued at 2.75m - and that is beyond dodgy as fuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JawD 99 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 The whole thing is one big dodgy fucking mess like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9170 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Just reading that the administrators reckon that 2.75m of the 5.5m was to pay for the players contracts and registrations. That may be okay in the sense that a clubs assets is its players but that does mean that everything else including Ibrox was valued at 2.75m - and that is beyond dodgy as fuck. They further state he paid £1.5Mill for plant, machinery ,fixtures and fittings, he got Ibrox, the training centre and a big car park for just over £1Mill. Best deal possible for creditors - aye right !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9170 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 No wonder the playing field never levelled out: The SPL deadline for clubs to provide information on improper registration of players was six weeks ago today but the league has yet to report findings to clubs, while the chief executive rallies support to allow a Newco access to the league. Time has expired on this policy of non-disclosure until it’s too late. If the SPL chief executive ever tells us that Rangers fielded improperly registered players between 2000 and 2012, resulting in years of 3-0 defeats being awarded, there will be an enormous amount of anger, not only among supporters, but in boardrooms across the country, as they ponder money which was rightfully theirs but which went to Rangers – perhaps including Rangers prize money for finishing second this season. We have made an attempt to quantify this money. Some of the losses were easier to calculate than others. For example, it was easy to calculate that when Rangers won the title in 2009 with improperly registered players, earning automatic qualification to the Champions League group stage, they denied Celtic £15m European earnings, plus £340k SPL prize money. Other losses are less clear, specifically when a club was denied a place in a qualifying round for the Champions League or Uefa Cup, which they may or may not have progressed from. We have established three figures for each club in the SPL during the season just finished, to cover the period from 2000 to 2012: Minimum loss: The absolute minimum each club was denied from European and SPL prize money as a result of Rangers finishing above them with ineligible players. Weighted loss: The figure based on Scottish clubs gaining entry to Champions League/Europa League (Uefa Cup) group stages from 20% of their qualifying campaigns (which is slightly less than trend). Maximum loss: The maximum a club could have achieved if it qualified for the European group stage it was denied entry to. Our estimates take no account of the subsequent effect money has on future years. For example, If Celtic earned an additional £15m from entering the Champions League group stage in 2009-10 their league challenge for that season would have been £15m stronger, and Rangers £15m weaker, potentially resulting in consequences in future years. This multiplier effect would have benefited Celtic but it would be likely to have a greater effect on other clubs, some of whom would be denied the enormous percentage increase in budget automatic qualification to European group stages would have brought. Hearts finished immediately behind Celtic and Rangers more often than any other club over the period and suffer the greatest potential losses, even more so than Celtic. Hibernian, Aberdeen, Dundee United and Motherwell also suffered significant losses. Several clubs got nowhere near European football over the period, and some of the 11 spent only a few years in the SPL but each club lost over £1m. Figures for each club are: Hearts Maximum: £72.3m Weighted: £16.3m Minimum: £6.2m Celtic Maximum: £46.7m Weighted: £21.9m Minimum: £17.4m Hibernian Maximum: £34.8m Weighted: £8.4m Minimum: £3.6m Aberdeen Maximum: £21.1m Weighted: £5.5m Minimum: £2.7m Dundee United Maximum: £20.8m Weighted: £5.2m Minimum: £2.4m Motherwell Maximum: £16.7m Weighted: £4.4m Minimum: £2.1m Kilmarnock Maximum: £5.1m Weighted: £1.9m Minimum: £1.3m Dunfermline Maximum: £3.4m Weighted: £1.8m Minimum: £1.5m Inverness Maximum: £1.3m Weighted: £1.3m Minimum: £1.3m St Johnstone Maximum: £1.1m Weighted: £1.1m Minimum: £1.1m St Mirren Maximum: £1.1m Weighted: £1.1m Minimum: £1.1m In the event Rangers fielded ineligible players during the period under consideration, which everyone apart from Neil Doncaster knows, and even he will be unable to deny next week, we know the following: Rangers received a minimum of £40.9m which should have gone to the 11 other clubs, assuming each club lost all their European group stage qualifying campaigns. This calculation does not include earnings from clubs now in the Scottish Football League, such as Hamilton Accies or Dundee. If Scottish clubs progressed to the group stages of European competition on only 20% of their qualifying campaigns the loss would be £69.0m. The figure for total potential losses if clubs successfully progressed to every European group stage is, as the figure for 100% failure, more illustrative than likely, but the maximum cost to the 11 SPL clubs is £224.6m. Results will be changed, trophies can and will, be re-awarded, but these are the harsh financial consequences clubs, their lawyers and supporters, will consider when the facts are presented to them next week. The SPL executive has had six weeks to consider if there is sufficient evidence to commence disciplinary proceedings; they have failed to do so. They have failed you and every other football supporter in the land, while shamelessly pursuing an accommodation for the errant club BEFORE REVEALING THE FACTS TO YOU. Time will be up soon, Mr Doncaster. You’ve had your chance but you have convinced no one. The people who really matter in this entire debacle are those who buy tickets for Celtic Park, Pittodrie, Easter Road, Tynecastle, Tannadice, Fir Park and the rest, they will hear the truth and read these figures. You have failed them. You can read our calculations here. European income figures were sources from Uefa data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat 0 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Peterhead and Arbroath have weighed up the 'carrot' dangled yesterday in the form of league reconstruction - if sevco are allowed into SFL1 - and have rejected it in statements made this morning. So far that's 15 against them in SFL1 and 3 for - looks like their best option will be in SFL3 next season if (and by the look of it a big if) they even get allowed to play at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9170 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Peterhead and Arbroath have weighed up the 'carrot' dangled yesterday in the form of league reconstruction - if sevco are allowed into SFL1 - and have rejected it in statements made this morning. So far that's 15 against them in SFL1 and 3 for - looks like their best option will be in SFL3 next season if (and by the look of it a big if) they even get allowed to play at all. Regan has said he wont allow D3, it's D1 or nothing (whatever nothing means) Gordon @Gri64 RT 10/7 @alextomo that is not the point, the point is if Regan is going to over rule it. Peterhead chairman says SFA will - go ask him why?Details Expand Collapse Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite 1halex thomson@alextomo @Gri64 Stenhousemuir says same. Seems pretty clear S Regan told them all they'll only consider Div 1 doesn't it? View conversation Hide conversation Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat 0 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 A couple of clubs want the wording of the resolutions changed before they vote - might go as far as to say that the SFL clubs may decide en masse not to vote tomorrow As for the Regan et al p*sh we'll see exactly what they do when they have sevco voted down to division 3 tomorrow - the Raith Rovers chairman quipped yesterday that the club chairmen should be sending the club mascots as their representatives to the meeting as it's a total pantomime anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toon_don 0 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Y'in oil and gas? Was up there 7 years until last year, now doon sooth, love Aberdeen though, thinking of maybe manoeuvring back there next year. Also home of the best curry house I've ever been in anywhere. I wish. I'm just a layabout student. Had a season ticket at Pittodrie for the last 3 years as I thought it was a good way of getting to know the place better. That and it's at the end of my road. Which was you Indian of choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.403f4a475ac3bb53997c2626c09ef800.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now