UCF2008

They've cancelled their invite to us. Why should we think they're worth the honor not to mention expense of a friendly invite?

Very good point. So much of this appears to be down to assumption. Those are the documents I'd like to see along with the transfer of SFA membership from club to company.

Once they've finished gloating over what they assume to be our demise, you might have a point there. ...Won't take them long to resume normal service and fill the air time with jakey's slevering about some decision from the latest ref they've just sent a death threat to.

Di Stefano has made some really good points in our defense. No idea what his motives are. He's got a reputation as devils advocate defending the indefensible or at least claiming to do so. He's a highly controversial character though and personally he's the last person I'd be wanting to represent the club in any official capacity. I agree that we should be challenging the SFA on the legalities. We can't take our sporting sanctions back to the civil courts. Corporate non-sporting issues could be challenged by that avenue though.

The other question here is, on what grounds can the SFL impose sanctions on us? Have we breached any of their rules? The SFA want the illegal transfer embargo to stand. They don't think the £160,000 fine is sufficient and they've also stated and had it upheld by the appellate tribunal that suspension or expulsion of SFA membership would be excessive. One legal option open to them is a Scottish Cup ban. However that could cost them a lot more than £160k in TV and sponsorship income. Nonetheless, if they insist that the fine is insufficient then it's the only fair punishment they can hit us with. So that leaves us in my opinion with Div1 and Scottish Cup ban as being the fair and reasonable solution to this mess. Like I said previously we could face a suspended sentence from the SPL dual contracts investigation. Titles being stripped for the years where wrongdoing on that front can be proven is an alternative. Hopefully it won't come to that though.

In the case of the SPL it was the company that held membership. It was the club however that was a founding member of the SFL. Rejection of the SPL membership transfer has left a gap open in the SFL with Dundee (another club with no shortage of recent insolvent history) being proposed as the club that should take our place. If we move to the 3rd division, this means that 2nd placed teams in the 2nd and 3rd divisions would gain promotion as well. Is that fair? What do the teams that finished 3rd and 4th think about this? ...or for that matter the teams who were relegated from the 1st and 2nd divisions?

Absolutely. We shouldn't have to be relegated to or re-apply for Div3 though. Personal opinions on what division we should start from aside, do you think that to be relegated to the bottom tier or being kicked out altogether and having to re-apply are justifiable sanctions?

Shit a brick when his bosses at the beeb and DR realised the implications in terms of their Old Firm coverage being effected more like. How can a sustained level of coverage for us as a Div3 club be justified? If the balance tips completely to the dark side they'll lose a huge number of consumers. They've been milking our prolonged period of destruction to the hilt in recent months and only now are beginning to come to terms with the consequences of their meddling.

That's if you're a new club. There is also no precedent to our case. Club's have been liquidated while in Div1 resulting in the reformed club having to reapply to Div3. This hasn't happened to an SPL club before now and it still hasn't as we're not a reformed club. The newco is the company. Have you read the terms of our SFA application for transfer of membership? Having to pay all football debts and accept punishment for all article breaches of the Oldco. Does that in any way suggest to you that the SFA are treating us as a new club? Of course not. Why should they when we're not?

Personally I feel that we should have been able to successfully dispute the SFA charge of bringing the game into disrepute. The SFA argued that the club and the individual are one and the same. How can this be the case when they separated the same individual from the club for punishment? Instead we disputed the punishment. This was successful albeit achieved by means which could yet have dire consequences when the Appellate Tribunal finally get round reconvening.

I think before anyone starts talking about fair and just punishment they should remind themselves of the crime. What exactly have we been found guilty of in relation to the punishments discussed?. Bringing the game into disrepute? How many times has mad Vlad faced that charge never mind the amount of times that lot over at the tattiedome have dodged it? Then there's the dual contracts enquiry. It's an SPL enquiry so you would imagine that it no longer applies to us. WRONG. If they find us guilty, which they no doubt will, then the SPL will either try to report the findings to the SFA/SFL in the hope that they'll sanction us or they could hit us with a deferred sanction that will apply upon our return to the SPL.

I wouldn't for a second suggest that they all voted against us because of Rangers presentation. I do think however that one or two who voted no may well have voted yes if a majority in favor could have been achieved. A meaningless yes vote however would risk financial loss through threatened boycotts to no end. The SFL vote is starting to look like it'll put us in Div3 with more and more clubs in the lower divisions spouting the same 'sporting integrity' pish as the SPL clubs. This had enough of the SPL clubs worried that they were reportedly wanting to postpone the vote until after the outcome of the SFL vote was known. What changed? Could be Regan put his foot down and demanded an outcome. Could be the CSC Westminster 'investigation' which was announced today will find that Scottish football needs Government subsidies in our absence. Could be that a few clubs just needed convinced that we were prepared to negotiate in a diplomatic manner as opposed to 'We're Rangers. We're the biggest club in Scotland. You'll die without us'.

Don't think that or any of the media commentary to that effect has been aimed at our new owners. I think instead it's been the attitude shown from us fans in dealing with their (poor wee souls) supporters over the issues facing our club. They've been the ones who've ultimately decided our fate. They've said how they feel sorry for the fans, but that was about as sincere as MM's apology I think it's been the lack of remorse shown from Craig Whyte and David Murray. It's been the collective attitude as a whole of what they think represents the Rangers they've been quite happy to stamp into the ground. What it's been least about is our new owners ...until today at least that is.

The apology was BS. About as insincere as it deserved to be. Do you think that apology was what they wanted? Why would they want to hear a public apology from Malcolm Murray? Why would Malcolm Murray think an apology was even due from himself or any of the Sevco consortium? Because Bomber said so?

Have to agree and I think he has come across quite well in his interviews since that initial one. Well rehearsed in his responses at least. Nothing like that initial introductory interview.

All I'm saying is that if you picture all the SPL chairmen in that meeting. They might not all be best pals, but they all know one another. Then in walks the new guy and comes across as a bit of an arsehole. It's not going to do us any favors. Like I said it's probably not going to have been decisive in this case, but I just hope we don't have to give any more presentations at the SFL meeting. That one could after all be determining the very survival of our club.

Who? Roddy Forsyth or the unnamed chairmen? Personally I can quite easily see it to be the truth. Whether it was a deciding factor or not is another story entirely, but anyone who caught Mr Murray's first interview on RTV before it was edited might agree that he does have a certain character to him to accompany the foot and mouth syndrome. Charles Green might well bore you to tears while fitting in random nonsensical metaphors and anecdotes given half a chance, but the impression I've got so far is that he's like Bambi compared to this guy.

According to some at the SPL meeting today Mr Murray apparently blew it big time. Rangers hopes of reprieve in SPL vote sunk by 'arrogant' Malcolm Murray - Roddy Forsyth A presentation by the Rangers chairman, Malcolm Murray â?? described as â??a disgraceâ? by one of those present â?? sank the last hopes of the newco club making a return to the Scottish Premier League at Hampden Park on Wednesday. The expectation beforehand within the SPL â?? shared by the Scottish Football Association â?? was that the outcome would be another deferral, leaving it to the Scottish Football League clubs to accept Rangers into their ranks and sparing the top division chairmen from a decision they did not want to make. There were also some who hoped that Rangers would be able to make sufficient case â?? coupled with a clear and evident change of attitude â?? for their admission to the SPL. However â?? and not for the first time in this saga â?? Rangers utterly misread the mood of the other SPL clubs. The faux pas occurred despite the fact that Rangers had been briefed at a meeting on Sunday attended by two other SPL chairmen and a vice-chairman, who stressed the need for humility. Murray, in blazer and club tie, arrived at the gathering on Wednesday with the frontman for the Sevco consortium, Charles Green â?? who did not sport the clubâ??s uniform â?? and Ally McCoist, the Ibrox manager. A presentation brochure was distributed to the delegates. The back page featured a photograph of a Rangers title win with the words â??We Are Rangersâ? emblazoned across it. â??The arrogance was unbelievable,â? said one chairman. â??The atmosphere hardened immediately. Charles Green conducted himself well enough but the Rangers chairman was arrogant and dogmatic.â? Another who was present told The Daily Telegraph: â??Some people in the room wanted a reason to make a case for Rangers but the standard of the presentation was woeful. â??Ally and Charles Green were not always on the same page but that was not damaging. The chairman was another matter entirely and the brochure was substandard â?? you could have easily knocked something better together given half an hour. It makes you wonder what kind of management team they have.â? Murray, Green and McCoist absented themselves from the meeting to allow discussion, then returned for the vote and cast theirs as a proxy for Duff & Phelps, administrators of the Rangers oldco. Only Michael Johnston of Kilmarnock gave them any sort of support with an abstention, while the other 10 clubs â?? including those who had expressed a degree of willingness to help Rangers, voted â??Noâ?? to the newcoâ??s admission. The Rangers party departed and a further two-hour discussion ensued. â??It was constructive,â? said one who took part. â??People actually listened to one another and respected the other positions. It was a huge leap of faith for integrity and itâ??s now up to the SFA and SFL to make their decision.â? Neil Doncaster, the SPL chief executive, said of the decision to refuse the newco entry: â??Clearly there were discussions going on between the newco and the members and ultimately that could have led to a presentation and a proposal put to clubs that they might have said yes to. â??In the end the proposal put forward to the clubs was considered and they said no.â? He added: â??I think [the vote] surprised a number of people. Money is important in professional football and I think what our chairmen have done today is put aside the short-term commercial considerations, that would ordinarily drive behaviour, ahead of the longer-term interests of their clubs â?? and supporter involvement has clearly been a huge part of that. â??Ultimately they believe they have made the right decision and one that brings a bit more clarity to an unclear world. Until we know where Rangers are playing next year we wonâ??t be able to ascertain what the damage is to the Scottish game. â??A number of people have said the decision today has enhanced the reputation of the league but itâ??s not for me to say.â?

Agreed. It could have been one of his 'money to buy Messi' type remarks.

From the STV article... So it would seem the SFA aren't too sure about the legalities. Nothing new there then

I don't want to bad mouth the guy. He might well have good reason for doing his 'braveheart' bit as the man on the receiving end of his outburst put it. I do think that in his own way bomber believes he's trying to do what's best for the club. I just don't get the impression that he's smart enough to understand what's going on at the club right now, never mind sort it out.

No idea what he's got to do with it but as our former chief scout I would hope bomber would at least be able to tell the difference between a player with 'potential' and the finished article

They're obviously worried about the SFL vote going against Rangers. I think one or two of the SPL clubs probably still want us to start in Div3. The others who've hid behind 'sporting integrity' just want to appease their own supporters. For what it's worth, my own opinion is that we should be allowed into the SPL with a 15pt deduction. Given the SFA's stance on our membership application it would appear that we're still to be liable for all football related wrongdoings of the oldco. If the SFA wants to replace the transfer embargo with a Scottish Cup ban that would be fair enough. If the SPL finds that it has a case against us for EBT's/dual contracts and decide to relegate us to Div1 then again, so long as they prove our guilt, that would be acceptable. If this is the case, they might want to suspend the points deduction until we return to the SPL. Don't see any problem with that.

The BTC always had the potential to force us into administration. In the end, even though it was included in the CVA and HMRC themselves have stated we now have a 'clean slate' it wasn't technically the BTC that forced us into administration. Potential liabilities aside though, If Tesco's were taken over by someone who used the the company's main source of income as takeover funding and in the process left them without any credit facility, they would be in big trouble. Same thing would apply to the corner shop.

Apples and oranges. Try working it out as % debt compared to turnover or valuation of the business and it's assets. THAT would give you a fair assessment. Can Tesco's handle a larger amount of debt than your local corner shop? Of course they can. When that level of debt begins to escalate beyond the means of the club to make repayments then that's when administration beckons. It's not rocket science you know.