weeyin

Voting "No" meaning liquidation would obviously be the worst case, but what about something the middle? "Cutting our cloth to suit" is a phrase bandied about quite regularly, but in reality that can mean things like making staff redundant. If the financials for "No" meant that we had to lay off half a dozen loyal Fir Park employees and close down 2 of the community projects, it might not be as clear cut. So, like I said earlier, let's see the details first.

If there is, maybe it should be after we receive all the details from the club.

Thompson, in The Herald I think, gave a long list of reasons for voting no, and then in the last sentence hinted that financials might sway him to vote yes.

Couldn't ask for anything more and looking forward to finally reading some details of the financial implications.

I'm a big fan of more equal revenue sharing and find it slightly ironic that the country where this type of 'socialist' activity it is practised the most is here in the capitalist US. Whether it's salary caps and equal distribution of income like the NFL or luxury taxes and big teams giving to smaller teams like the MLB, it tends to lead to a more even playing field. Of course, the reason this is done is because the owners are smart enough to realise that, in the long term, keeping teams closer to parity makes for a more competitive league which in turn draws in more fans and generates more revenue. One day, the short sighted suits in the SPL might finally get it.

In which case, there will be no problem getting the OF to agree to it.

Agree with this. Everybody, including the board, need all the facts so an informed decision can be made. Right now, facts are thin on the ground, but hopefully will be clearer by the 4th of July. I think the board was correct to start laying out the potential implications of a 'No' vote. It's easy for us to sit here and say 'just need to cut our cloth to suit' etc. etc., but these are the people who would have to do it. Our board refuses to go into debt, but let's not kid ourselves that many of our rivals would do that (in the short term at least). There would potentially be a number of tough financial decisions to be made, and if they get one wrong, it could put the club's future in jeopardy. I'm still leaning towards a 'No' vote, but if someone showed me the figures that meant the SPL would survive without Rangers, but Motherwell FC would fold, then I'd be mad to support it. Hopefully, at the fans' forum, there will be more information available - or at least in the run up to the SPL vote itself. I think there is plenty of horse trading to be done before that though. If, for example, you offered me a scrapping of the current voting system, a 16 team league, a fairer distribution of TV revenue and a 20 point deduction for Rangers for the next 3 years, then I might consider letting them stay. If it's just a 'take it or leave it' then it's still a 'No'.

Considering all the sucking up to the Old Firm that JB did when he was in charge, I doubt he has changed his mind now.

I think what the club is hinting at is this scenario: If newco is voted out of the SPL and the TV deal is renegotiated downward, we will be in the position of having the same expenses (team wages., backroom staff, ground maintenance etc.), but significantly reduced income. The club is not in a position to get an overdraft, and the Well Society funds are untouchable in this regard, so it could leave them with quite a financial gap to plug. I'm all for stuffing Rangers out of the SPL, but I'd really like to see what the necessary adjustments would be to the budget. If it ends up that we sell Fir Park, ground share with Accies, sack players mid-contract and get rid of McCall, then I might re-consider. Of course, I'm not saying it would be that extreme - that is why we need all the information presented. It's more difficult to make an informed decision without the information.

If the club being investigated has been liquidated, I doubt there is much that can be legally done now.

No idea, and it doesn't really matter as they are legal vehicles. It was the way the club reported them (or didn't) that was the problem. So would I, but I wouldn't turn down the chance of signing another Ross McCormack.

Better say 'ta ta' to McCall then, as he was likely on an EBT during his time with Rangers (not that there is anything illegal about that from a players perspective).

Could be the first step in compensating for the drop in TV money when we kick Rangers out the SPL Seems like a smart move to me. We are still a selling club, and bringing up ready made replacements through the ranks has served us well in the past.

That was kinda my point. Levein spent months trying to get the rules changed for Andy Driver and then when they bolloxed that up, he got them changed again. So he's likely to try for more rule changes now McLean is at his beloved Utd.

Even at that, it will still be an improvement over Kenneth! Now that he's at United, Levein will no doubt try to get McLean back into the Scotland setup.

Worse than that, the administrators are making a complete mockery of the creditors. They aren't obliged to keep the SPL sweet (except, of course, it makes business sense to do so), but they are legally obliged to get the best deal for the creditors. They have definitely failed to do that.

He can't even keep track of how many investors are backing him.

Unfortunately, there is no SPL precedent for this. That is why we are having the vote debacle.

Both great wee grounds to visit. (Raith play in Petrol Blue too, right?)

Vote on what? The question is unlikely to be as straightforward as yes/no. There may well be conditions related to points penalties, voting changes, financial redistribution etc.

CVA hasn't been formally rejected yet. Newco hasn't been formed (and legality of it, could yet be challenged) Criteria for vote (if it's held) not been communicated. There are so many details yet to be established that it's far too soon, for me at least, to consider my reaction to hypotheticals.

Because it's only the season ticket holders that count when it comes to fans?

There's one of the problems though. What do the 'vast majority' want? It's a pretty small number that post on here. What if the majority of 'Well fans, on seeing the actual proposal, decide they want Rangers in the SPL?

Cheers. I saw that all SPL clubs get a vote, but was still unclear as to what they were allowed to vote on. Read a few articles over the last couple of months that stated there was no provision in the SPL rules to deal with a newco, so had no idea on what the latest thinking was.

The SFL receive 'support payments' from the SPL and the relegated teams receive SPL parachute payments, so presumably watching those leagues is also verboten.