rbr

Utter bollocks

I await the usual suspects stating its a pish bus and we could get much better

What kind of computer screen have you got a triple HD one , stop moaning until you see them in reality , what is it about Rangers fans these days , moan moan bloody moan , you havent even seen the thing

like so many other fans , I fear after everything we have went through , it will be for nought , for quite simply there is no vision no leadership nor any thought other than the old tried and trusted , for christs sake its the 2nd division we are going into. The management have targeted runs in the cups as a means of success and also of income but surely we could have been more imaginative than what is happening right now

To be honest the guys behind the scenes move all over the place , no big deal that he was at septic IMHO

Who is the new fitness guy , Gary Sherrif , or rather where did he come from

I was one of those who couldn't believe we had got LeGuen in the first place , so when I first started hearing what was going on I didn't initially believe any of it , then it started to be the players fault for everything , to be honest it was never going to work

Hemmings has been released , more to follow

Quick example of differing ideas , when PLG first arrived he instructed the Doc at the time Ian McGuinness that water and only water was to be given to players , no re hydration mixtures , no salts or carbs nothing , now there is not a sportsman in the world who doesnt take some sort of rehydration/supplement . I cycle on average 3 times 50 miles plus every 2 weeks and I consider myself reasonably fit for my age averaging around the 20mph mark , however if I take just water then after about 30-35 miles I start cramping and basically blowing out my arse , sports medicine is so so important these days anyone who doesnt think so is kidding themselves on

Timing couldn't be worse as preseason starts on Monday , plus any new fitness coach will want to implement their own program,s . Also for all those blaming Owen , hes going to join a guy who rates his fitness very highly , do you honestly think Davie Weir would take someone who doesn't know their stuff , seriously , maybe just maybe the answer lies elsewhere .

Why when we have a superstore right beside an underground

Not everyone reads the catholicherald from 2010 , jesus wept and we call them obsessed

But he didnt need to comment on it did he , its pathetic , we are getting as bad as the forever offended mob , weve had catholic managers , players and captains so fecking what , no comment , its not relevant ,. so what , he could have said a number of things ,to be brutally honest even what he said wasnt a big deal but why the need to say anything .....

Goldman short selling wasn't the issue whether you or I like it or not. The issue was that people and institutions were buying stuff they had NO IDEA they were buying - the very concept of sub-prime mortgages is a foundation based on sand. It makes no sense at all unless you are speculatively trading and, in which case, you shouldn't be betting the boat on those types of trades. To be honest I thought about this after posting and your 100% correct ,also after re reading your correct I sort of missed the context , been a long day

Your under playing their part in what was the greatest financial disaster this century and to say oh well its ok they made a profit out of it whilst everyone else across the western world bore the brunt is pretty poor. Short selling though legal is morraly reprehensible and to be honest those bastards should have been locked up for what they did, because they knew what their actions were going to lead to.

people only mentioned it because he brought it up

I have an Irish catholic parentage and I will not deny my mother and father but I'm not a man of God. It doesnt really matter but why did he include it then , im fed up people appologising for their upbringings etc etc

I believe you are wrong. Goldman Sachs didn't have major troubles during the credit crunch - in fact, they had $4 billion in PROFIT by short-selling the sub-prime market - I wouldn't mind some of that crisis. The only issues that Goldman had during the financial crisis was that their traders were blamed for causing it by short selling (which is a legal technique) - Sorry Craig but if thats an attempt at defending GS , its pretty pityful

Correct that's an old plan , to be honest this is no more than an ego trip , there is a reason why the airport put the central search in and why 99% of the shops are airside , this will lose money , its a certainty

This is what the Annan Chairman was quoted as saying last Sunday , see the Annan says no thread . Board composition is another red-line area. The 3-2-1 make-up means there will be three members from the top 12 clubs, the SPL, two members from the next ten clubs, the First Division, and one member covering the next 20 clubs, which equates to the entire Second and Third Divisions. This is not equitable. We know our place in the lower tiers but we put something back. We proposed a 3-1-1-1 composition of the board, which would have meant one representative from each of the Second and Third Divisions. It was a small gesture that would have given clubs at all the levels the comfort they had a voice but made little difference to decision-making since the top-flight clubs would still have been able to carry the day. Yet it was thrown out completely, illustrating to us that the bottom 20 clubs are to be marginalised in the “new” SPFL to the point of being irrelevant.

YES - Les Gray, Hamilton Academical I HAVE spent the past ten years, first with Clyde and now at Hamilton, attempting to bring about fundamental change to Scottish football. I believe we have never been as close to bringing this about as we are now. Yet, I would not dare second-guess how the vote on the 42-club solution will go at Hampden on Wednesday. People have become entrenched and, though I have the greatest respect for such as Henry McClelland at Annan, some Second and Third Division clubs seem to have closed their minds to the proposals. I think it would be a great pity if the resolutions weren’t passed and the 42 senior clubs could not go forward together as one. Surely being together, being united, is what we all want. It certainly seemed that way the other month when we had 27 clubs of the 29 eligible to vote in favour of what was on the table. Of course, that then went to 14-14, then 16-13, before a meeting of the Second and Third Division clubs last week seemed to suggest nine clubs remain against – two more than the seven threshold that would allow the resolutions to pass. I believe, when people take a step back, they can surely see that one body, more equitable distribution of revenues, play-offs between the top and second tiers and a pyramid structure is unquestionably good for the senior game. And the reality is that a merger between the £20m-turnover SPL and the £2m-turnover SFL brings economies of scale more akin to Marks & Spencer co-opting the local corner shop than anything else. We all have to recognise our place in the game and deal with the realities that requires us to face. At Hamilton, we know we are not one of the big boys. We have 1,500 hardcore fans in the First Division and we are not wealth generators. Celtic, Rangers, and maybe the Edinburgh clubs and Aberdeen are the only teams that probably come into that bracket. They cannot be dictated to by clubs like ours, or teams three levels below attracting a couple of hundred spectators. One of the gripes of the “no” camp is the composition of the new board should the Scottish Professional Football League come into being. Yet, what is forgotten is that SFL chief executive David Longmuir himself proposed the 3-2-1 format, which effectively would see five places taken up by the full-time clubs. This split reflects the financial differentials involved. Some of the smaller clubs need to wake up and smell the coffee. I offer this up as no threat, but if we cannot reach agreement on the 42-club solution on Wednesday, the next day we will push forward with a 22-club solution. All of us in the First Division have made our intentions plain to the other SFL members. That is why we lodged letters of intent, following the vote being split 14-14. I think this did refocus minds among the Second and Third Division clubs to consider the consequences of this revamp failing and I would hope those minds would be refocused once again this week. As far as we clubs in the First Division are concerned, we have full-time football teams to run and the current set-up and structures must be changed this summer so that we can strengthen the second tier and, in turn, strengthen Scottish football at the highest level. My worry, should those of us in the First Division be forced to seek membership of the SPL, is the clubs left in the SFL drifting away. There are different interpretations of how the settlement agreement would be divided up but I must caution the SFL clubs that they won’t be in line for 20/30ths, as they appear to think. Now, I know the dissolution of the SFL after 123 years is an emotive subject, this being the first and pivotal resolution we will vote on in three days’ time – the other four being technical legal points contingent in the dissolution being passed. However, I don’t think the fact that the SFL has always been around is a good reason for keeping it. It was created in the 19th century. We are now in the 21st century. It is not the be-all-and-end-all. The SPL is not the be-all-and-end-all. Having a joint say can give a place to all members of each, however. Those with objections to approving the resolutions often refer to a lack of trust between the two organisations. I have often been posed the question as to why we in the SFL should trust those in the SPL. I would ask, why not? If we consider the recent past then, have there been any more attempts by the SPL to mislead us or manipulate us than there have been by any other officials in the other football organisations in this country? I would ask those who vote on Wednesday to think seriously about that. I think the due diligence concerns are now being dealt with but it is in the interests of the SPL to make the 42-club solution work. We might disagree but I think we all want to do what we feel is best for the game. Henry and I may believe doing our best requires contrasting votes on Wednesday’s resolutions. If democracy and the decision-making process determines that a 42-club solution is not carried, we will get on with our lives and running our football businesses and pursue change. After Wednesday, Scottish senior football won’t be the same. Right now, the issue is what form the remodelling will take. • As told to Andrew Smith

NO - Henry McLelland, Annan Athletic I FEEL as if I am being treated as a villain for formulating objections by going through the fine detail. Or that I am some sort of dinosaur, or a naysayer. I am none of those things. At Annan we do not have the debt of some of the bigger SFL sides and that allows us to be open and critical of what is on the table here without reference to the financial position. Money isn’t the issue for us. There are five key principles wherein there are red-line areas we simply cannot accept. The first relates to the new Scottish Professional Football League that would be formed if Wednesday’s vote sees 22 of the 29 clubs back it – which I am sure will not happen, despite the “for” camp curiously suggesting the opposition to it has weakened to the point where the split is 21-8. The perception was that the SPFL would be a new body formed from the coming together of the 12 clubs in the Scottish Premier League and the 30 clubs in the Scottish Football League, and represent a fresh start. That is not the case. It would be incorporated into the SPL and have the same registration number. In business terms, it would be the SPL with a new name. When expressing our surprise over this, we were told it had to stay the same so that players contracted to SPL clubs could not walk away. What about the contract of players in the SFL? Where is our protection? In reality, I have done some digging and discovered that the Companies Act of 2006 would prohibit the transfer of the SPL’s business and assets while they are involved in a £1.8m litigation with Harry Hood’s company Lisini Pub Management over the SPL’s ban on the use of foreign decoders to show their matches. This can’t be denied and I have highlighted it at open meetings. If this case was lost, what exposure would a 42-club league body have to future compensation claims? It could sink the new organisation. Board composition is another red-line area. The 3-2-1 make-up means there will be three members from the top 12 clubs, the SPL, two members from the next ten clubs, the First Division, and one member covering the next 20 clubs, which equates to the entire Second and Third Divisions. This is not equitable. We know our place in the lower tiers but we put something back. We proposed a 3-1-1-1 composition of the board, which would have meant one representative from each of the Second and Third Divisions. It was a small gesture that would have given clubs at all the levels the comfort they had a voice but made little difference to decision-making since the top-flight clubs would still have been able to carry the day. Yet it was thrown out completely, illustrating to us that the bottom 20 clubs are to be marginalised in the “new” SPFL to the point of being irrelevant. If any further evidence of that were needed it is to be found in the proposed voting structure contained in the new rules and articles. For a motion to be passed it requires 90 per cent of the SPL – the 11-1 – 75 per cent of the first two tiers, 17 of the top 22 clubs and 75 per cent of all 42 clubs – meaning 32 must be in favour. Yet, if 40 clubs wanted to pass a resolution but the two clubs against just happened to be in the SPL, the motion would fall. Instinctively, we feel that is simply not right. We understand that Celtic and Rangers deliver the television deals and the sponsors; we are not bloody stupid. But there is a fundamental flaw in 40 clubs being beholden to two. The scenario means that, if in the future it was decided to relegate four cubs from the bottom tier, for instance, this could be carried even if all ten teams in that set-up vote against it. Our problems with the distribution have nothing to do with the targeting of monies into the First Division. We would be delighted for those clubs to receive a real financial boost with many of them seeming to present that as a necessity after being conditioned to spend heavily in order to chase an SPL position. What has troubled us is the unwillingness to carry out due diligence from the SPL’s point of view. Now, it is understood we will be given some sort of information on these finances tomorrow, but why hasn’t that happened earlier when I understand the SFL offered to pay the £30,000 costs [of the due diligence]. Surely it is understandable that we know the organisation we are merging with is sound and stable… especially since last summer SPL chief executive Neil Doncaster told us Armaggedon awaited it if Rangers weren’t placed in the First Division. Look, we have heard all about how the SPL and SFL combining isn’t Asda and Tesco getting together. We have no problems being no better off. We just don’t want to be altogether worse off. The play-offs between the first and second tiers are wholly positive and, despite conjecture to the contrary, at Annan our Third Division status doesn’t put self-interest ahead of us agreeing in principle with the pyramid structure. How could we be other than supportive of this change when we waited so long to make the step up to the senior game, and only did so five years ago because of the demise of another club? Our only issue here is that, as it stands, there are few details and nothing underneath, with the Lowland Conference yet to formed. Too many proposals in the reconstruction are less than fully formed in a satisfactory fashion. http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/league-reconstruction-is-it-finally-time-1-2960522

There was a report that he had accepted an invitation to the NARSA convention but wanted one of his brothers to come along and for NARSA to pick up the business class ticket for his brother as well, when they refused he declined the trip . This seemingly came from a NARSArep , any more than that ..?????