Madbadteacher Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Not sure who Kelty are playing pre-season, never heard of them: http://keltyhearts.co.uk/#/stefan-winiarski-testimonial/4566413650 Are they allowed to use that badge? Quote
Madbadteacher Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Latest Tomo blog has his responses from SFA, UEFA and FIFA: http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/questions-answered-footballs-governing-bodies/2235 So......................................... If it's a "transfer" and doesn't need 3 years of accounts from "new-cunts" then they'll still be liable for ALL the creditors, HMRC, etc? Canna have it both ways, you're either old-cunts and liable, or new-cunts and not eligible. What way do you want it cockwomble, Longmuir et al? Quote
bloo_toon_red Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 I'm bored fucking shitless of all this crap I used the word "fucking" sarcastically there just so nobody can accuse me of actually swearing. Quote
glasgow sheep Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Apologies for a rather large cut and paste job but this statement really puts the utter bullshit coming out of the SPL, SFA, Seveco and the media to shame. Also doesn't exactly hold back on their opinion of Cockwomble and his sidekick Regan, and indeed states that Cockwomble is merely doing the SPL clubs bidding......still no reply from Mr Fraser. 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. Quote
Kowalski Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 What an amazing statement, thank fuck for some of these so-called smaller teams. They know what sporting integrity is. Quote
Mentorred Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 So......................................... If it's a "transfer" and doesn't need 3 years of accounts from "new-cunts" then they'll still be liable for ALL the creditors, HMRC, etc? Canna have it both ways, you're either old-cunts and liable, or new-cunts and not eligible. What way do you want it cockwomble, Longmuir et al? I don't get this transfer crap either, you can transfer some things but leave the debt, does not make sense. Quote
BigAl Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 I don't get this transfer crap either, you can transfer some things but leave the debt, does not make sense. Its called being one half of the Brothers Grim Quote
Madbadteacher Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Its called being one half of the Brothers Grim Al, dinna compromise IT's called "fucking cheating" Quote
BigAl Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Al, dinna compromise IT's called "fucking cheating" You know what min You're fucking bang on Quote
Jute Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 Apologies for a rather large cut and paste job but this statement really puts the utter bullshit coming out of the SPL, SFA, Seveco and the media to shame. Also doesn't exactly hold back on their opinion of Cockwomble and his sidekick Regan, and indeed states that Cockwomble is merely doing the SPL clubs bidding......still no reply from Mr Fraser. If he was not then surely the SPL clubs would have spoken out by now. Quote
Madbadteacher Posted July 10, 2012 Report Posted July 10, 2012 You know what min You're fucking bang on first time for everything Quote
Kowalski Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/2847704 SCOTTISH football is edging towards a compromise that will see newco Rangers parachuted into next season’s Division One. It is understood the SPL will vow to set up a 16-team top flight within three years in return for the crisis-hit Ibrox club being accepted into the second tier. Radical changes would also see a move from the current four divisions to three by 2015 with no play-offs planned between the top and second tier. The plan was today set to be discussed at an SFL board meeting at Hampden. It represents a last-gasp bid by the league to safeguard the lucrative television deals following the collapse of Rangers. Reports have highlighted Scottish football is facing a crippling £80 million loss from television revenue and sponsorship if Rangers have to start again in Division Three. The 30 SFL clubs are set to vote on Rangers’ future on Friday and are seeking radical reforms to Scottish football’s structure. SFL chief executive David Longmuir is this week negotiating a package of reforms, including a change in the share of monies and voting rights, with the SFA and the SPL, which he hopes will persuade his member clubs to allow the new Rangers to start again in the First Division. But amid a climate of animosity and acrimony, that is not guaranteed. Former SFA president George Peat today insisted SFA chief executive Stewart Regan was right to reveal the extent of the crisis facing the Scottish game. At a meeting with the SFL clubs last week Regan claimed the only way to prevent the “slow, lingering death for the game in Scotland” was to allow Ally McCoist’s side to play in Division One. Regan’s assertion, and the way it was delivered, did not go down well with many of the SFL clubs. Peat, who stepped down last summer after four years in the Hampden post, said: “Stewart has been unfairly criticised as someone has to take the lead and that’s what he did. “He has to try to act as a go-between, between the SPL and SFL and won’t please everybody. All he has done is to spell out the road the game could go down and what will happen. “Perhaps it didn’t make good reading for some, but somebody had to explain the facts, whether they are pretty or not.” Quote
glasgow sheep Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 http://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/Article.aspx/2847704 fuck off div 3 then change the league system Quote
Jute Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 fuck off div 3 then change the league system This. Quote
Tyrant Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 Scottish football will be dead to me if that happens. Division 3 (at the very fucking most) and a 16 team league, please. Quote
fatjim Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 To be fair we have been crying out for a 16 team league and it didn't look like it was going to happen. If it can happen this way and very soon then I would take that. Quote
Jute Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 How in a 16 team league will they get the 4 old firm matches that they tell us we must have to keep the tv companies interested? Looks to me like clubs (including our own) have been conning us since the start. They was never any intention of going down the sporting integrity route and making Newco apply to start again at the bottom as anybody else would have. If it had not been for fan pressure they would have been in the SPL already. Quote
Superstar Tradesman Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 Reports have highlighted Scottish football is facing a crippling £80 million loss from television revenue and sponsorship if Rangers have to start again in Division Three. And how much of this £80 million were the non-old firm teams going to see of this money anyway? Fuckin peanuts I'll wager. Quote
glasgow sheep Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 How in a 16 team league will they get the 4 old firm matches that they tell us we must have to keep the tv companies interested? Looks to me like clubs (including our own) have been conning us since the start. They was never any intention of going down the sporting integrity route and making Newco apply to start again at the bottom as anybody else would have. If it had not been for fan pressure they would have been in the SPL already. And did the SPL clubs including ours not reject similar suggestions out of hand as recently as last season? Are they not just trying every combination they can think of till one works? None of this changes the position as stated by clubs like Clyde and Raith, in fact it surely hardens their position as the SPL clearly have no interest in what is best for the game given we get a new proposal every week. Quote
Tyrant Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 To be fair we have been crying out for a 16 team league and it didn't look like it was going to happen. If it can happen this way and very soon then I would take that. And then how long until they decide to take it away again? Quote
baggy89 Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 16 team league and no play-offs, how exciting. and this All he has done is to spell out the road the game could go down and what will happen. “Perhaps it didn’t make good reading for some, but somebody had to explain the facts, whether they are pretty or not.” It's either what could happen (and therefore a prediction) or a fact, not both. Quote
Kowalski Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 Looking like a 14 team league for 2013/14 is being proposed by the SFL board. Quote
glasgow sheep Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 Looking like a 14 team league for 2013/14 is being proposed by the SFL board. That's handy when you're looking for a way to ensure Seveco get promoted direct from Div1 isn't it? Quote
CtS Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 When is the over-ruled transfer embargo alternative punishment getting handed out, or does that no longer apply because they're a 'newco'? Quote
glasgow sheep Posted July 11, 2012 Report Posted July 11, 2012 When is the over-ruled transfer embargo alternative punishment getting handed out, or does that no longer apply because they're a 'newco'? Well as they are making it up as they go along I'm not sure there is an answer to this. More bullcrap, horsehit and fucking cuntery from the SPL "Meanwhile, BBC Scotland has learned a final decision on which club should replace the old Rangers in the Scottish Premier League is unlikely to take place before Monday." So the SPL are keeping options open to see what outcome of vote is on Friday then. Come on afc, are you part of this or not? Quote
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.