weeyin

Rangers went into liquidation. The owners thought the SPL clubs would bend over backwards to let newco back into the SPL. The SPL clubs, based on fans reaction such as ours, decided to reject that application. So the Well Society vote played a part in the rejection of newco application. There was nothing underhand, shady or misrepresented by the club in that vote. Now we are dealing with the consequences, and hopefully the SFL will follow our lead and not be pushed around.

Agree with this. The latest proposals are a direct result of us (and other clubs) rejecting newco from the SPL.

Football, not just Scottish football, has been all about the finances for years (even decades) now. From putting 24 teams in the next Euros, to scrapping straight knockout in favour of Champions League format, to shifting kick-offs for TV, to allowing shady owners to pump in millions, to turfing Well fans out the Cooper Stand for OF games, to releasing 3 or 4 kits when you only ever need 2, to selling 'the brand' in Asia, to naming rights for stadiums etc. Sporting integrity hasn't been a part of the Scottish Football for as long as there has been an 11 - 1 voting system, 12pm Sunday kick-offs, an unequal distribution of TV revenues and the removal of clubs sharing gate money. I'm all for kicking Rangers into Div 3, I'm just surprised at the level of surprise on here that some clubs don't want that.

OK, seeing as you don't believe any of that. What about the following, also from the document: IF WE AGREE THEN WE REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING - A new distribution model with the settlement agreement value protected and future proofed - A more balanced governance model (as circulated) Is that good or bad? Does more balanced governance mean we lose the 11 - 1 voting rules. What about the new distribution model? Does that mean it might be more equal? What was published on the STV site was obviously just a Powerpoint Presentation. Not exactly a legal or binding document. I need to hear what the details are first and, even more importantly, what the SFL response is, before I start with the boycotts etc. again.

Except, when it comes to SPL2, the document reads: 4. RANGERS TO SPL2 •Currently not supported by the SFA •Creates a bigger divide •Leads to some short term commercial losses •A legal challenge could paralyse the game •The overall pot would be much less than anticipated Not currently supported by the SFA could be an issue there, not to mention the legal challenges.

They can, quite correctly, claim they are following the wishes of the Well Society with the "No to newco" vote. Which is why a statement isn't going to make anyone any happier. You can just about write it now: initial vote was for newco, sensitive topic, put it out to Well Society, response was No, ready to take that to SPL on July 4th, only after sufficient clubs indicated no did the SFA/SPL/SFL discussions firm up, needed to distribute them in time for july 4th discussions, no time for 2nd vote, for discussion only and no decision can be made until when or if details are agreed.

You would have to think so. Hopefully somebody photocopied Gannon's notebook before he left.

That's their opinion (right or wrong). However, the SFL can still reject and then the fun would really start.

If the SFL also vote no, it doesn't matter. Rangers will have nowhere to go and the SPL2 will have no teams.

If the SFL teams have the balls to tell them to get stuffed, the SPL2 would be a pretty small league. Be better if the SPL teams that voted no set up their own league with the SFL, and leave the other 3 or 4 SPL teams to play on their own.

The SPL are kicking them out. It's up to the SFL to do the right thing now.

From the Evening Times

It's up to the SFL chairmen now, but hopefully their fans will send them the same message.

Aye, unfortunately that might well be the case. It's all very well agreeing to kick out newco for reduced finances, but the cost will likely be a level of inconsistency in the short terms.

Even more experienced pros like Chris Porter looked out of their depth in their first couple of appearances. If the fans aren't prepared to let our youngsters develop, it's going to be a long season for them, because we can expect to be relying on more of them this time around.

Do you really think HMRC wouldn't notice? It's not that difficult to audit gate receipts.

Some of us are still waiting for him to turn up.

Which players do you think are overpaid and how much are they earning?

I don't think he's carrying injuries right now, but with his history of ACL and knee injuries, he's at a high risk of more of the same unfortunately. Not saying he's not worth a short term punt if he comes cheap, but there is a reason he hasn't been snapped up yet.

Fitness is transient.

And yet, he is still without a club.

Yes. When he was younger and fitter he was capable of turning it on even at international level. Injuries and sitting on the bench for extended periods has seen some of that diminish.

I obviously haven't seen him in every game, but the times I have watched him play over the last 2 or 3 years, he hasn't come close to the form he showed for us. That's why he has been floating around looking for a club in recent times.

Now that ESPN have lost the EPL, they may be more willing to pick up the slack in the SPL. Not saying the money would be the same, but might be another option on the table.

Of course nobody thinks the WS will make that 900k. But don't blame the fans for that, blame the cheats who have been fiddling their taxes for the past few years. Selling a couple of players, bringing up a couple of youngsters instead of dabbling in the transfer market, getting past one round of European competition, the TV deal not being as bad as predicted etc. will all make an impact on the projected losses. The teams in the SFL generally seem to cope without Sky and OF revenues, and we managed it ourselves when we were dossing around the First Division for a few years. July 4th. Independence from the Union Jack wavers. No SPL representation without taxation