Tweed Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Seems like I'm very much in a minority as for me it's a YES. I accept the comments regarding sporting integrity and us being on a financially sound footing, but for me voting no will put at risk the future of the SPL for quite a long time. Like it or not we do rely on the money we get from playing Rangers and also from the broadcast deal.There may well still be a broadcast deal but dramatically reduced. There is also part of me that says saying no will eventually benefit Rangers, they get to reduce wage bills, they get to still potentially win trophies (ok 3rd Div etc) and they build a mentality with fans where everyone is against them. It also means the potential for them to buy the odd player from other SPL teams goes and thus less money circulating. I also believe they shoudl be made to face the punishment in the SPL. Playing each season with a points deduction and having to watch other teams take their place in Europe. I think we all accept that it isn't a straight yes or no and i'm sure that we trust those in power at FP to share their thoughts and reasons for which way they decide when the time comes. These are all fair arguments but on balance I still think it has to be no because it is the right thing to do. To be honest I also think long term it is also better for Rangers to build from Division 3 as you have said but we have to punish them accordingly for the offences they have committed, not based on how that might affect them 3,5 or 10 years down the line. What is good for the goose has to be good for the gander and if it would happen to Motherwell, Inverness or St Mirren it has to happen at Rangers. If we let them back in we need to let every other club that goes down the same route back in too. I also think there is a chance Rangers will accept playing in division 3 in time. Also I think we will vote against it because I think having said we'll consult the fans and then doing the polar opposite would be a much bigger commercial disaster than just voting yes. Dundee Utd, Aberdeen and Hibs will be no votes and while Celtic probably want to vote yes to preserve the 11-1 voting structure there is no way their fans would accept it either. I don't think they will be allowed back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 It has to be no. Apart from all the other arguments, if we dont enforce sporting integrity here when can we? We would basically be saying neither Rangers or Celtic could be relegated as we need their money too much. Sorry but thats not sport. In addition, if we let them in and apply tough sanctions, then relegation could be a real prospect for them next season. What do we do then? I accept there will be less money next season without them, but not the 'terminal' figure the establishment junkies are predicting. If we do the right thing here we WILL all survive and Scottish football will at last get the chance to get its house in order and build a brighter, fairer future. A yes vote will see the continuation of a slow terminal descent into oblivion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 A yes vote and the game will die overnight imo. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Although I see the argument about Rangers benefiting from the whole lower wage bill etc. their own Stadium could be their worst enemy in the SFL. It's a fucking state. It costs something horrendous to upkeep a month, and in the SFL I can see many empty sections - which would just add to the final re-pair bill when they hit the SPL in the 3 to 4 years time. I also agree with Lobey_Dosser. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilmour Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 No...and if they are then whats the point watching our club week in week out knowing that if Rangers and Celtic have a record poor season they can never be relegated. Above all else that is not right. What is the point of having a league when certain teams are not allowed to be relegated. Sums it up for me and no season ticket renewal if the club vote yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Sums it up for me and no season ticket renewal if the club vote yes. Don't mention that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 I'll simply just put NO. I'll leave it there or I'll end up ranting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Also I think we will vote against it because I think having said we'll consult the fans and then doing the polar opposite would be a much bigger commercial disaster than just voting yes. I don't think this can be over looked. Loads of folk on Pie & Bovril seem to be convinced we're guaranteed 'yes' voters and, at the beginning, I would have agreed - but as things have developed, I actually think we simply must be leaning towards a 'no'. Motherwell have now confirmed in two separate statements that they plan to discuss the issue with the fans. I don't think there's any doubt that the poll above is going to be pretty representative of our support as a whole - perhaps not as one-sided, but it'll be pretty close to the results here. I don't for a second believe there is anyone within the club who doesn't already know how the support feels. Therefore, by announcing that they will consult the fans, the club are either planning to follow the wishes of the support and vote 'no', or are going to consult the fans purely for the sake of it before betraying the support's wishes and voting 'yes'. When you throw in the Well Society issue, that would be an absolutely disastrous move by Motherwell. Not only will memberships be cancelled - including my own - but it would throw doubt over the future memberships that the Society needs to be successful. I genuinely believe that consulting the support, it being made clear in no uncertain terms that the majority of the support is against a 'yes' vote, and yet going ahead and voting 'yes' anyway could be the end of the Well Society before its really even got going. I also don't believe for a second that this isn't something those at the club recognise which leaves me thinking we may actually end up voting against a newco. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 I don't think this can be over looked. Loads of folk on Pie & Bovril seem to be convinced we're guaranteed 'yes' voters and, at the beginning, I would have agreed - but as things have developed, I actually think we simply must be leaning towards a 'no'. Totally agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Spl no more according to Jim Spence. SFA planning to have new structure in place for beginning of season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 Spl no more according to Jim Spence. SFA planning to have new structure in place for beginning of season. you can guarantee that the teams in the top league will keep the same autonomy as they have presently. there is no chance the likes of east fife will have a vote on top league income split or tv deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
real dosser Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 If we look at the number of members on the site ( 3100 ) and exclude those who have posted less than 10 times we have 2240 members on here . The votes cast so far are only 4.2% for a Newco and 95.8% against. Multiply this up ( I know everybody won't vote the same way but it gives an estimation ) then 122 are in favour of a Newco and 2118 are against. It's a no brainer if the club take fans views into account. The ones who have voted yes will sober up eventually anyway. NO TO NEWCO Mon the Dossers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 it looks like sky have said they'll do a year without rangers and this rejigging of scottish football will see rangers dropped into the 1st. not the worst solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 it looks like sky have said they'll do a year without rangers and this rejigging of scottish football will see rangers dropped into the 1st. not the worst solution. What happens if Rangers don't win the First Division? Or what happens if they go into the last few minutes of the season drawing 0-0 and needing all three points for promotion? Will the referee be on strict instructions from the SFA to award Rangers a penalty in order to ensure they win the league? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 it looks like sky have said they'll do a year without rangers and this rejigging of scottish football will see rangers dropped into the 1st. not the worst solution. To me, this is the worst solution. A complete fudge. Either SPL or Division Three. Anything else is a compromise because of who Rangers are... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 What happens if Rangers don't win the First Division? Or what happens if they go into the last few minutes of the season drawing 0-0 and needing all three points for promotion? Will the referee be on strict instructions from the SFA to award Rangers a penalty in order to ensure they win the league? were you at the morton game? any team with a playing budget of £1.5m - £2m should be looking at going the full season undeafeted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 were you at the morton game? any team with a playing budget of £1.5m - £2m should be looking at going the full season undeafeted. "Should be looking at" being the most important part of your post. Of course Rangers should be far and away the favourites to win the First Division, but that doesn't mean it's impossible that it might not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 were you at the morton game? any team with a playing budget of £1.5m - £2m should be looking at going the full season undeafeted. Aye, you can say that but you never know. Rangers get three or four key players injured outwith the transfer window and it becomes less simple. You know that every team raises their game against a big club.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 To me, this is the worst solution. A complete fudge. Either SPL or Division Three. Anything else is a compromise because of who Rangers are... three years minimum without a title race is too big a blow for the league imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 "Should be looking at" being the most important part of your post. Of course Rangers should be far and away the favourites to win the First Division, but that doesn't mean it's impossible that it might not happen. obviously it's not impossible but it's unlikely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 I'll wait to see the details of this new prospect but it's certainly an interesting one. Although Rangers only being dropped to the First Division would be a bit of a shambles, I wouldn't be completely against it if it brings about the drastic changes our domestic game desperately needs. I could stand the short-term sense of injustice for the long-term benefits for our game. Those changes need to be brought about though, if it's simply about rejigging a few things so they can 'pretend' to punish Rangers on the understanding they'll be back after a year, then they can go get fucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finlay Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 How many of their players will want to 'slum' it in the First Division for a year? That level should eliminate any player from international football even if they are winning every week. So they turn to the Under 20s for a year? No guarantees of promotion....then what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickoza Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 How on Earth can they release a fixture list on Monday now? Will the league set-up remain the same for a year or what? And on the fixtures note.... Rangers to be excluded from SPL fixture list Rangers will not be included in the Scottish Premier League fixture list for next season when it is published on Monday, Telegraph Sport can reveal. It will be the first time since league football began in Scotland in 1888 that the Ibrox club will be absent from the schedule. Instead, the fixtures for the 11 other clubs will be announced, with some form of cipher used to signify Rangers who – if their application for acceptance as a newco is rejected – will be replaced by Dundee, runners-up in the Scottish Football League last season. Rangers cannot be incorporated into the fixture list because the Ibrox administrators still hold the club’s share in the SPL but have no players and no stadium. Rangers Football Club, the newco owned by the consortium fronted by Charles Green – who assumed control on Thursday – have a stadium and perhaps also a playing squad (although that issue has yet to be resolved) but no share in the SPL so, as matters stand, they cannot play in the league. The SPL board meets on Monday and will be presented with a letter of application from Green’s newco. Recently adopted changes in SPL rules mean that the board must refer the matter to the member clubs. The issue could be deferred until the SPL’s annual general meeting on July 16 but, because of the proximity of the new season which begins on Aug 4, it is all but certain that a general meeting will be called. SPL rules specify 14 days’ clear notice, so the first available date for the general meeting will be Tuesday, July 3. In the meantime, Ally McCoist will continue as Rangers manager despite his confrontation with Green on Wednesday, after he had been led to believe that the former Sheffield United chief executive intended to replace him. Green described a subsequent meeting with the former Ibrox playing idol as “very productive” and his new chairman, Malcolm Murray, said of McCoist: “He’s vital – like Walter Smith he’s got iconic status. His dream was always to be No for Rangers. “I’m sure he’s never wanted to leave which some people have said. I’m hoping to talk to him shortly and I’m over the moon that he’s staying. That was our major objective.” Asked about Rangers’ fans fears that the new regime was in place purely to flip the business after seeing to some restoration of its status, Murray replied: “That’s definitely not the intention at all. I would not stand for that quite frankly – that’s not why I came in at all. “The door is open for anyone to speak with us. My own view is we all get together, invest and look for board seats rather than have any rivalry going on. Just a few days ago the Charles Green consortium was the only one that was prepared to put any money on the table and there’s more money coming in. “We’re pretty confident the long term interests of Rangers will be looked after here. Stage one is McCoist being more positive. It’s obviously been a traumatic time for him and I really feel for him as all fans do. “To put his mind at rest I will tell him the other people involved are of the highest integrity. The vision is to have a debt free football club. I think that will become the new norm. You don’t want to be in the hands of banks – you want to be in the hands of people who can drive the thing forward. “At the moment the biggest issue is what league we’ll play in. I’d much rather we were playing in the SPL. “We’ve had giant punishments already – a European ban, a 10-point deduction, the emotional trauma everyone has suffered. I think, for the good of Scottish football, it’s much better Rangers in the SPL.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 How many of their players will want to 'slum' it in the First Division for a year? That level should eliminate any player from international football even if they are winning every week. So they turn to the Under 20s for a year? No guarantees of promotion....then what? even if they cut their playing budget to £2m that's more than enough to win the first. it would be a piece of piss to sign a team of free transfers that could run away with that league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted June 16, 2012 Report Share Posted June 16, 2012 three years minimum without a title race is too big a blow for the league imo. What kind of title fight are Rangers going to put up any time soon? Not saying Rangers shouldn't be in the SPL but the argument that they need to stay to stop it being a one horse race is possibly the weakest one for keeping them.. 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.