cogitoergozoomo Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Common misconception #27383893: Rangers being a) expelled from the SPL; and b ) starting in Division 3 in the SFL are NOT PUNISHMENTS. It is standard practice for how Newcos are handled.  Common misconception #27383894: Rangers losing 'all their first team squad' is NOT A PUNISHMENT.  It is a consequence of going bust and becoming a Newco, resulting in contracts not automatically being transferred to the new company, and in many cases, contracts becoming null & void under employment law.  Just a couple of things, based on McCoist's bleating over the past few days about how Rangers have been 'punished enough'.  Common misconception #27383895: Last seasons 10 point deduction was not a punishment.  It is in the rules that any club that enters administration will receive an immediate ten point point penalty.  Common misconception #27383896: A three year ban from European competition was not a punishment.  The UEFA Financial Fair Play rules state that Newco clubs are not eligible for European competition for the first three seasons of their existence.  I do however think the transfer ban is a punishment and a step to far. Rangers are a Newco and as such should not be restricted in how they operate going forward. If they want to sign players they should be allowed to do so.  What I do think is that if they wish to cling onto the history transferring and the Newco being a new company but not a new club then they should still be accountable for any outstanding footballing debts and agree to a structured plan of repayment.  They should not be allowed to start splashing cash whilst innocent clubs get stiffed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIB Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Yes, buba3d's views are the reason where Rangers are where they are. Honest to fuck. Â We'll not be 'clinging' onto any history - the history will always be there as much as you try to deny it. NEW CLUB NO HISTORY, WHO ARE RANGERS AGAIN??? IS THAT SEVCO YOU'RE ON ABOUT? Fuck off. Â I don't think anybody would disagree we should be held accountable for any football debt, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 I didn't read Buba's post so negatively. The Sevco games are the SFL's to sell but along come Doncaster again with his bully boy tactics trying to steal them. Either they wanted Sevco or they didn't, they can't have it both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reznor Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 We'll not be 'clinging' onto any history - the history will always be there as much as you try to deny it. Of course it will, no ones denying you your memories and history, only the last dozen years of it since it's looking increasingly likely that your foul play can be proven. Â I don't think anybody would disagree we should be held accountable for any football debt, by the way. No, if you want to consider yourself a continuation of the deceased club, I don't think anybody would disagree you should be held accountable for all debt. Â What's so special about football debt? Let's be honest, you're only saying it's fair to be held accountable for that because it's such an insignificant sum in the grand scheme of things and repayment is manageable. Nothing to do with what's right and just. If the bulk of the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jock Knew Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 We'll not be 'clinging' onto any history - the history will always be there as much as you try to deny it. NEW CLUB NO HISTORY, WHO ARE RANGERS AGAIN??? IS THAT SEVCO YOU'RE ON ABOUT? Fuck off. Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIB Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Doncaster and Regan are parasites on the game. How they were ever given this level authority defies logic. Â On the other hand, the only sort of dignity we've seen from the top of the game has been from David Longmuir who's conduct has been exemplary from the outset, bowing neither to bribery or blackmail from the SFA. Â Is there anybody not sick of this saga now? I just want to get back to supporting my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jock Knew Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Doncaster and Regan are parasites on the game. How they were ever given this level authority defies logic. On the other hand, the only sort of dignity we've seen from the top of the game has been from David Longmuir who's conduct has been exemplary from the outset, bowing neither to bribery or blackmail from the SFA.  Is there anybody not sick of this saga now? I just want to get back to supporting my team.  Concerning the bit in bold, you're not wrong. I think supporters of every club want to oust them. Doncaster in particular.  Of course people are sick of the saga. But it's not just as straightforward as "getting back to supporting your team". There are countless legalities and procedures that need to be thought through. If anything, all the other Scottish clubs are even more fed up with the saga because the predicament YOUR club has put us all in has disrupted preparations for the new season/European qualifiers/lower league cup ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIB Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 We'll not be 'clinging' onto any history - the history will always be there as much as you try to deny it. Of course it will, no ones denying you your memories and history, only the last dozen years of it since it's looking increasingly likely that your foul play can be proven. Â I don't think anybody would disagree we should be held accountable for any football debt, by the way. No, if you want to consider yourself a continuation of the deceased club, I don't think anybody would disagree you should be held accountable for all debt. Â What's so special about football debt? Let's be honest, you're only saying it's fair to be held accountable for that because it's such an insignificant sum in the grand scheme of things and repayment is manageable. Nothing to do with what's right and just. If the bulk of the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GIB Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Doncaster and Regan are parasites on the game. How they were ever given this level authority defies logic. On the other hand, the only sort of dignity we've seen from the top of the game has been from David Longmuir who's conduct has been exemplary from the outset, bowing neither to bribery or blackmail from the SFA.  Is there anybody not sick of this saga now? I just want to get back to supporting my team.  Concerning the bit in bold, you're not wrong. I think supporters of every club want to oust them. Doncaster in particular.  Of course people are sick of the saga. But it's not just as straightforward as "getting back to supporting your team". There are countless legalities and procedures that need to be thought through. If anything, all the other Scottish clubs are even more fed up with the saga because the predicament YOUR club has put us all in has disrupted preparations for the new season/European qualifiers/lower league cup ties. We're an OldCo when it suits them, and a NewCo when it suits. They want it both ways and I'm sick of it.  It's not Rangers that's dragged this on, any competent footballing body would've dealt with this less than a week to spare before the first game of the season.  Are you The Dude by the way? I meant to ask this a while ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InvertedSmiley Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 Common misconception #27383893: Rangers being a) expelled from the SPL; and b ) starting in Division 3 in the SFL are NOT PUNISHMENTS. It is standard practice for how Newcos are handled.  Common misconception #27383894: Rangers losing 'all their first team squad' is NOT A PUNISHMENT.  It is a consequence of going bust and becoming a Newco, resulting in contracts not automatically being transferred to the new company, and in many cases, contracts becoming null & void under employment law.  Just a couple of things, based on McCoist's bleating over the past few days about how Rangers have been 'punished enough'.  Common misconception #27383895: Last seasons 10 point deduction was not a punishment.  It is in the rules that any club that enters administration will receive an immediate ten point point penalty.  Common misconception #27383896: A three year ban from European competition was not a punishment.  The UEFA Financial Fair Play rules state that Newco clubs are not eligible for European competition for the first three seasons of their existence.  I do however think the transfer ban is a punishment and a step to far. Rangers are a Newco and as such should not be restricted in how they operate going forward. If they want to sign players they should be allowed to do so.  What I do think is that if they wish to cling onto the history transferring and the Newco being a new company but not a new club then they should still be accountable for any outstanding footballing debts and agree to a structured plan of repayment.  They should not be allowed to start splashing cash whilst innocent clubs get stiffed. I don't see the transfer ban as a punishment at all. The way I read it is that it's a trade-off for the fact that "Rangers" can't provide the three years of audited accounts that are required for SFA membership. Because, while McCoist and co. like to go on about severe punishments and such, "Rangers" have in reality been treated more favourably than any other club in Scottish football history by being automatically entered into the third division despite clubs who have been around longer and who have the correct financial structures in place being shut out.  Besides - rather ridiculously - the transfer ban won't come into effect until September 1st, so they have six weeks to spunk away money they've yet to prove they have on the likes of Ian Black and Craig Beattie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 We'll not be 'clinging' onto any history - the history will always be there as much as you try to deny it. Of course it will, no ones denying you your memories and history, only the last dozen years of it since it's looking increasingly likely that your foul play can be proven. Â I don't think anybody would disagree we should be held accountable for any football debt, by the way. No, if you want to consider yourself a continuation of the deceased club, I don't think anybody would disagree you should be held accountable for all debt. Â What's so special about football debt? Let's be honest, you're only saying it's fair to be held accountable for that because it's such an insignificant sum in the grand scheme of things and repayment is manageable. Nothing to do with what's right and just. If the bulk of the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members unfitfinlay Posted July 22, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 No it's not, it's a new company/club, whether you like it or not. A membership being transferred is irrelevant, Airdrie United transferred Clydebank's membership but they are still classed as being founded in 2002, and didn't take Clydebank's history. This company owns the club shit, is exactly that, shit. Rangers own website states the club BECAME the company. It's a new club that is very alike to Rangers, no history, no debt should be transferred, no punishments should be given.  Classed by who exactly? The SFL recognises Airdrie United as being founded in 1965 and includes Clydebank's history. They also recognise Livingston as being founded in 1974. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 No it's not, it's a new company/club, whether you like it or not. A membership being transferred is irrelevant, Airdrie United transferred Clydebank's membership but they are still classed as being founded in 2002, and didn't take Clydebank's history. This company owns the club shit, is exactly that, shit. Rangers own website states the club BECAME the company. It's a new club that is very alike to Rangers, no history, no debt should be transferred, no punishments should be given.  Classed by who exactly? The SFL recognises Airdrie United as being founded in 1965 and includes Clydebank's history. They also recognise Livingston as being founded in 1974.  Apologies. Everywhere else I have looked class them as 2002 but I'll go with the official SFL of course. However, none the less, the rest of my post stands and the membership transfer is irrelevant in anything but that it gets the new club into the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClassicsGuy Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Common misconception #27383896: A three year ban from European competition was not a punishment. The UEFA Financial Fair Play rules state that Newco clubs are not eligible for European competition for the first three seasons of their existence.  Related to this is the plight of Portsmouth, who missed out on a place in the Europa League 2010/2011 after they entered administration in early 2010, and were refused a UEFA license to play in the competition the following season. Liverpool took their place as a result.  So it's not like Rangers are the first club to be denied European football by UEFA for financial reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cogitoergozoomo Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Doncaster and Regan are parasites on the game. How they were ever given this level authority defies logic. On the other hand, the only sort of dignity we've seen from the top of the game has been from David Longmuir who's conduct has been exemplary from the outset, bowing neither to bribery or blackmail from the SFA.  Is there anybody not sick of this saga now? I just want to get back to supporting my team.  Concerning the bit in bold, you're not wrong. I think supporters of every club want to oust them. Doncaster in particular.  Of course people are sick of the saga. But it's not just as straightforward as "getting back to supporting your team". There are countless legalities and procedures that need to be thought through. If anything, all the other Scottish clubs are even more fed up with the saga because the predicament YOUR club has put us all in has disrupted preparations for the new season/European qualifiers/lower league cup ties. We're an OldCo when it suits them, and a NewCo when it suits. They want it both ways and I'm sick of it.  Which is exactly what the Rangers are doing as well. They want to be a newco when it suits them and an oldco when it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.