UCF2008

That's quite a statement from our spokesman. While dropping a bombshell like that on behalf of our club did our 'spokesman' not think to mention in what capacity Stretford is assisting us? Hopefully some respectable media outlets (whatever those are these days) can elaborate and not just pick up this snippet and run with it.

I think the main problem is that technically (at least in the eyes of the SFA & SPL boards) we haven't received any sanctions yet beyond a 10pt deduction. The rest - demotion to div3, players lost in transit, loss of European spot with 3 year exile - is just being put down to a matter of consequence. The motivations / justifications of those who refused our SPL share transfer were based on a loose definition of 'sporting integrity'. To some it was because we HAD to be punished. To others it was because they couldn't get there heads round our newco situation, insisting we were a new club and had to be treated as such. The same applied to the SFL vote, although I'd say there was a majority leaning more towards the 'new club' opinion in that vote. So where does that leave us? The SFA are basically insisting that in order for our membership to be transferred from the oldco to the newco and in turn sustaining the 'history' attached to the membership, that we can't be treated as a new club and avoid the punishment they wanted to impose on the oldco. That would be fair enough (illegality of the proposed player registration embargo aside) if it wasn't for the fact that our wrongful treatment as a 'new club' by the SPL & SFA has already had the consequence of our demotion to Div3. To argue against that would be to admit that it's a punishment. The reality is that it's a bit of both. We've been punished AND wrongly treated as a new club and are being expected to accept this as a mere consequence of our own actions. So with that in mind, we're stuck in our present stand off over what essentially CAN be concluded as being further punishment.

As opposed to what exactly? Accepting crippling sanctions and at least 3 years spent in the footballing wilderness?

Again that would depend what league we managed to negotiate entry into. Some would bring in more investment than others after all. The fees from the loans you suggested would only stretch so far. Our youth system would obviously need to be kept running, but I think it would be easier to negotiate entry to youth leagues than senior at short notice.

The ground staff or possibly some livestock as Green previously said in jest?

If they don't give us membership in time for the season start, we could still apply to join another association and league for the following season. As long as we have an FA membership we'll be able to sign players and play friendlies. Would we be able to attract players to come and spend a season playing friendlies though? Would the club be able to sustain itself with no 'competitive' games for a year? I suppose it would depend what league we were looking forward to joining.

He's more of a conspiracy theorist and 'truth' seeker. Not quite Jesse Ventura, but so long as his investigations and legal foray's on behalf of our club don't impede justice being served, I don't see the harm in what he's doing so far.

A STRONG Rangers side defeated Albion Rovers 5-1 in a closed door friendly at Murray Park yesterday thanks to goals from Barrie McKay (2), Lee McCulloch, who netted a penalty, Alejandra Bedoya and a last-minute Maurice Edu strike. Trialist Kieran Brannan replied with a penalty for Rovers. Albion manager Todd Lumsden had expected to be facing a Rangers under-20 side. “I did get a bit of a surprise when I saw their line-up as Neil Alexander, Carlos Bocanegra, Kirk Broadfoot and Dorin Goian all started as well as the guys that scored,” he said. Source: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/football-briefs-rangers-hit-albion-for-five-in-friendly-1-2426198

@DEVILSADVOKAT why would #rfc accept an illegal ban? What am I missing here ? GIOVANNI DI STEFANO let's see what happens in Italy today @DEVILSADVOKAT i wonder why Charles green is in Italy do you know why? GIOVANNI DI STEFANO yes discussing situation with aurelio @DEVILSADVOKAT GIO do you reckon that rangers could be gettin bought over again very shortly ? keep up the good work mate #WATP GIOVANNI DI STEFANO I don't know if "rangers" can be bought but certainly Sevco could well be whether it has a valid claim on "the club known as Rangers" is another story and may well be a matter for the courts but if Aurelio does buy Sevco it will not be an issue I would contest as a shareholder so we see.

One thing the SPL could do that might prevent us playing in the SFL next season, is refuse to give Dundee the SPL share and play with 11 teams. This would leave no place in the SFL for us. If the SPL are still hellbent on destroying Scottish football, they might try this, but I think it's more likely that this is a non-story.

The problem with the SPL that our chairman is referring to is that they won't accept the SFA sanctions as being sufficient punishment to persuade them to drop the dual contracts / EBT case against us. That problem won't effect our SFA or SFL status, but it could effect our history.

There is no SPL membership to transfer. Rangers PLC (the oldco) had a share in the SPL. That share will now be transferred to Dundee. There is no history attached to the SPL share. The BBC journo in this instance appears to have taken / used quotes, mainly from Malcolm Murray, out of context.

They rejected the requested transfer from oldco to newco of our share in the SPL. That's why we're no longer in the SPL. The SFL doesn't need our SPL share to be transferred or any form of endorsement whatsoever from the SPL in order to accept us into div3 as they have already done.

Could be wrong here, but I don't think the SPL have a say in the matter. They could, if they choose, deny us promotion to the SPL when the time comes but AFAIK they have no say whatsoever in either the transfer of our SFA membership or acceptance to the SFL. Pending that transfer we have already been admitted to the SFL. I wouldn't put it past the SPL though to try and blackmail the SFL into giving them a share of the media rights by threatening, as they did recently in their 'proposal', to withhold settlement agreement funds.

As for our 'next legend' my own opinion on that is that every one of these players that are about to take us back to the SPL will become legends. They might in some cases be remembered for that feat alone, but you can guarantee they won't be forgotten.

I think we definitely need to bring in more than one striker. Some experience could be necessary in case McCulloch either gets injured or is needed as cover elsewhere. First of all I'd consider Heally. If he's still free and would be willing to work within the wage structure, I really think he could do a job for us.

I see it's now been corrected

They are inviting GDS to take action against them in relation to their duties carried out as administrators. You would assume this doesn't cover any of D&P's activities regarding the company prior to and contributing to the cause of administration.

Of course not. If the rumors are to be believed, we've been quite active in seeking senior players to sign in the event that we're able to do so. As long as we can bring in enough bodies between now and the end of the transfer window we should be OK.

We'd also have a season and a half to focus on scouting and recruiting some quality under 18's though.

It's got to the point where they're hardly going out on a limb, in our case, when they predict the worst case scenario as fact.

Could be wrong, but given the timing, I would hazard a guess that this Italian connection stems from Di Stefano's interest. I'm not saying he's behind it though.

As far as I can see, the point of these meetings if they actually have taken place as they should have, is to gain some clarity on our position with UEFA. This has little to do with the SFA stance on our position. It's more to do with dealing with any potential UEFA sanctions due to our non-payment of footballing debts. UEFA have reportedly already received official complaints against us on this front after all. In theory we could be back in Europe 3 years from now. I for one think it's a good idea to try and keep it that way.

The problem I'm seeing with this is the consequence (not 'punishment') of it effectively being a season and half transfer embargo as opposed to the original single season travesty of justice.

It's independent of the actual legalities of the EBT situation though ...except of course if the HMRC case verdict rules against us. It will come down to whether the player payments were legal / contracted / declared with SPL ....whatever delivers a guilty verdict essentially.