UCF2008

We're building an empire. Didn't you know?

I see your point there and think most of us would probably have been up in arms about it. The difference is that it's already been transferred to a new company anyway. There is an element of risk involved, but then perception of that comes down to whether we trust the owners or not. After the events of last year I'm wondering if we should we be keeping all our eggs in one basket.

Since it was me who brought them up initially I'll remind you that I didn't claim they were. In fact I pointed out that 3 of the six were products of our youth system. That's if you don't count Adam who joined as a trainee and even then I think I was being lenient since he was about 14 or 15 at the time and spent 4 years in our youth setup.

McGregors certainly not. Neither has Hutton who's been struggling to get a game for the majority of of the time since he left us - Initially through injury granted. I can't honestly see how Naismith could really play much better than he did for us. Burkes been less injury prone but no better. Miller's gone back to being a journeyman who's past his prime and has lost his starting place in the National team. I might be willing to give you Adam. At least when he was playing for Blackpool that is. Glad you cleared that up for myself and the rest of us head in the sand brigade. Much appreciated Maybe now we can get back on topic?

Not that I really want to get involved in this off topic debate, but last nights team did include 6 former Gers plus one current on the bench. Three of those were products of our youth system and that's not counting Charlie Adam. How many came through the ranks at your favoured youth setup?

That's why I suggested an 'appropriately higher level'. It's all hypothetical anyway, but I would assume some combination of English historical examples and current standing of the Old Firm in UEFA rankings would be used as evidence to suggest how far we might have risen over that period if we had been allowed to make the move. In 2001 for instance, following widespread speculation on the issue throughout the year an 'informal' vote was held by the 20 premiership clubs in December resulting in a unanimous rejection. Then in 2002 the SPL dispute over TV deals, with the 'rebel 10' resigning from the league, led to a number of English 1st Division club chairmen voicing support to inviting the OF to join the Football League. At the time it was confirmed that informal talks between the OF and clubs down south had been taking place for several months. I'm not sure if there's ever been a formal application. I only know that debate on the issue has been ongoing for more than a decade.

I read about this same approach a few weeks back and iirc the idea is that if we were to base the case upon us having been refused entry for around a decade then a ruling in our favour would take this into account and request we be admitted at an appropriately higher level.

One thing I'm a little bit confused about is how the stadium naming and sponsorship in general is dependent upon what league we're playing in. I'd understand if it were Scottish Div3 compared to the EPL, but as long as we're playing in the Scottish leagues, bringing in the same crowd numbers and getting the same level of TV coverage then what's the difference in terms of a sponsors exposure between Div3 and SPL?

I don't think it should be counted as number 55 either, but what exactly are you getting at here mate? Was it not sufficient that we drop to div3? Should we have mothballed Ibrox, halted all commercial activities and played our games at Murray Park with part-time staff? Would that have been a level enough playing field for you? Is that how you'd have liked to have seen us rebuilding?

Holding off to see if HMRC are granted an appeal

...It's an opportunity to improve the standard of our game from top to bottom. Instead as expected self interests from top to bottom are getting in the way. It shouldn't all be about the marketing and money, it should be about responding to what the fans want and fixing deficiencies which are currently stinting the growth of our game.

To be honest I think that's the reasoning behind it. The whole notion of reconstruction is just being used as window dressing to try and market Scottish football as a 'new improved' product.

The issue is the 'fairer distribution of wealth' in our game though. It's all fine and well to talk about how a couple of games against Rangers can set these teams up for years, but does that not just illustrate the point that they've got next to no money coming in. The reconstruction being proposed meanwhile would seem to be offering them even less. Don't get me wrong. I think these clubs are to be commended for their ability to survive on a showstring budget, but from what I've seen of them so far this season, they actually have a lot more to offer the Scottish game than they're being given credit for. I don't blame them for grabbing what they can. I just think their selling themselves short. I've said all along that I think 2 leagues is the way forward and that the financial distribution model just needs sorted. I don't agree with the 'meaningless games' argument. I don't even understand what that's supposed to mean in fact.

The clubs at the bottom which stand to benefit next year should the proposals be voted through are being extremely short termist in their thinking. The main arguement against bigger leagues is their lack of financial viability. This mob, who already have next to no money, will be left stuck in a league of 18, with all the money going into the 2 leagues above them waiting for the odd penny to 'trickle down' to them. In other words you'll have 18 clubs facing a real struggle to stay afloat. I wonder how long the Rangers money will last them.

Players shouldn't be picked based upon what league they're playing in anyway. Despite Strachan having a good knowledge of the game down south, I hope he signals the end to players getting picked based on them playing at a supposedly higher level. Especially the ones who aren't actually playing as they can't get a game. Being match fit has to count for more than the league your club's playing in.

It's possible although I can't see them wanting to do us any favours even if it is in their best interest. Besides, they keep saying that there's no way we'll be fast tracked. ...then again, last summer Doncaster kept emphasizing that there was no difference in his eyes between a CVA and Newco exit from administration while Longmuir repeatedly said there was no route into the SFL for us ...and we all know how that turned out.

The two can't really be compared, at least not in terms of ability. You might as well be comparing Goram to McCoist.

I agree and don't think it should be used as an excuse although I can't think of any examples where it has been ...yet. I think if anything we've seen enough from the youngsters so far this season, that many supporters want to see them given more of a chance. I think we are probably a little too over protective of our youths. Or at least that's the excuse for them not being given as much game time as we'd like in a lot of cases. On the same token though the pressures and level of responsibility which come with playing for the Rangers first team are generally much higher than other Scottish clubs.

It's the SFL rulebook and wouldn't have had much if any effect on the SPL meeting today. If our case is made to the SFL clubs after their meeting on Thursday then it'll be too late.

I agree. I don't think Green's said anything wrong. I just think he has a stronger case to put forward. I don't even think it's a case to do with what we expect. We should be ponting at the rulebook and saying that under no circumstances will we accept being in the same league next season as our current opponents should we win it. Let them make of that what they will. Just let them know we're prepared to fight it all the way.

He does say it, but he's relying on the moral stance when he has the rule book on side. The powers that be have already shown they have no moral 'integrity'

Well that's one thing the club can do. We can put it in writing to them and then if we're still ignored we can take them to court. The question is does Green feel strongly enough about this to take it to the courts?

This is beyond a joke. Only in Scottish football could reconstruction as idiotic as this be rushed through. We need to try and find a route out of this midden.

We'd better get used to taking this sort of 'banter' on the chin because it's not going to go away any time soon. I can imagine fans of certain clubs 20 years from now still taking the pi$$ and referring to us as zombies, sevconians, etc.

Tasteless maybe. Although not as bad as bjk. It doesn't really deserve a response tbh