BrahimHemdani

That's correct.

A virgin in Stenhousemuir?

Can't see that UEFA would take that into account; we are where we are.

Quite and very droll answer BTW. Stupid really, I knew it was wrong when I typed it, put it down to old age Edit: have taken the liberty of editing the OP, thanks again.

YES, he is the Chair of RFFF, as I have pointed out on several occasions, there is a conflict of interest in that never mind anything else.

In theory yes, but in practice highly unlikely, principally because it would appear that the application has to be submitted some time after 31 August of the year preceding the licence season i.e. before the "sporting merit" is established. There is also the issue of our accounting year. It is not clear at the moment whether it will return to 30 June as previously or later as seems to be the case this year for newco. This is the relevant provision of the UEFA Regulations: Article 15 – Special permission 1 If a club qualifies for a UEFA club competition on sporting merit but has not undergone any licensing process at all or has undergone a licensing process which is lesser/not equivalent to the one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other than the top division, the UEFA member association of the club concerned may – on behalf of such a club – request an extraordinary application of the club licensing system in accordance with Annex IV. 2 Based on such an extraordinary application, UEFA may grant special permission to the club to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition subject to the relevant UEFA club competition regulations. Such an extraordinary You can forget about this season. "The monitoring period assessed in the licence season 2015/16 covers the reporting periods ending in 2015 (reporting period T), 2014 (reporting period T-1) and 2013 (reporting period T-2)." So in theory whilst it might be possible to apply for 2015/16, I can't see that there would be justification for the SFA to make application at the start of next season for the licence to be granted in 2015/16, because at that point (late 2014) there may still only be a part year's accounts. I think any application would have to be made before the Scottish Cup begins, to be fair to the other clubs in the event that Rangers won, or were runners up in the cup; so that would give to around the end of 2014, when we might have one full year's accounts or a year and half say, still not much to go on. So really can't see it next season either. I think where there is a possibility is when 3 years are up but we don't have 3 years accounts, which suggests a possible application some time in late 2015 to be granted a licence for 2016/17. Most people seem to assume that we will be back in Europe in 2016/17 i.e. by qualifying from the SPFLP in 2015/16 but that would require us to be licensed for 2016/17 and normally that would mean having 3 year's accounts before then, which is by no means certain. If the accounting years become 30 June 2014 (i.e. the first "year" is a year and a half), 2015 & 2016, then normally the accounts would not be available until say Oct of each year, so even 2016/17 would be a tight squeeze. There are other possible scenarios such as the first period being short but then we would only have say 2 1/2 years by June 2015 (published in say Oct 2015). I also think that what a lot of people are looking at is the possibility of winning the cup next season and then going into Europe in 2015/16 but as the above analysis shows this is highly unlikely and even 2016/17 is problematical. The Regulations say: Article 47 – Annual financial statements 1 Annual financial statements in respect of the statutory closing date (which would be set by the SFA in our case) prior to the deadline for submission of the application to the licensor and prior to the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA must be prepared and submitted. There is also a provision: Article 48 – for the interim period 1 If the statutory closing date of the licence applicant is more than six months before the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA, then additional financial statements covering the interim period must be prepared and submitted. 2 The interim period starts the day immediately after the statutory closing date and ends on a date within the six months preceding the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA. AND Article 65 – No overdue payables towards football clubs – Enhanced1 The licensee must prove that as at 30 June of the year in which the UEFA club competitions commence it has no overdue payables (as specified in Annex VIII) towards other football clubs as a result of transfer activities undertaken up to 30 June. Not likely to be an issue for us now! But this might be: Article 52 – Future financial information 1 The licence applicant must prepare and submit future financial information in order to demonstrate to the licensor its ability to continue as a going concern until the end of the licence season if it has breached any of the indicators defined in paragraph 2 below. and there is also a Break- even requirement which is complex but concludes: The break-even requirement is not fulfilled if the licensee has an aggregate break-even deficit for reporting periods T-2, T-1 and T exceeding the acceptable deviation (as defined in Article 61) having also taken into account the surplus (if any) in the reporting periods T-3 and T-4 (as defined in Article 60 (6))! There are other criteria apart from purely financial e.g. SPORTING CRITERIA PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA LEGAL CRITERIA Sorry to put a damp squib on this as I for one have been suffering withdrawal symptoms from Europe since Maribor and Malmo and am keen to get back before I'm too old to travel; but we have to be realistic. Also apologies if I have got any of this wrong but there are 69 Articles and 9 Appendicies over 93 pages and I haven't read them all never mind being sure of interpreting them correctly!

Almost certainly UEFA will pick it up and "open a case". IF they do, and the incident was as reported, he will get a 2/3 game ban at least.

Andrew McCormack is Ally and Durant's agent; don't know if represents any players; but if he does it is surely a conflict of interest? Then there is the interesting case of Neil Murray who was working as an agent whilst Heading up Murray Park, a clear conflict in my book. I know for a fact he was in touch with Ally in the immediate aftermath of his sacking (of course, no reason that he shouldn't have been when he was no longer employed by Rangers). It would take some digging to establish if he represented any of the players who were signed or negotiated new contracts or pay-offs whilst he was a Rangers employee. Also not sure if that was the sole reason or even played any part in his dismissal.

If Cole was still seen as a good enough prospect in June to get a new contract, why sign Foster, who's a decent player but not exactly a world beater and also prone to error e.g. Newcastle?

You are right to the extent that all the directors have to stand for re-election and presumably other nominations could be made given due notice. I think I am correct in saying that at the time the requisition was submitted there had been no indication of an imminent AGM; so the EGM may indeed be redundant.

Been done to death in the transfer thread mate. Consensus seems to be we don't need him, or at least not at the type of wage he might want.

Define "difficult away ground" in SPFL1 please dB; or are you referring to a possible SC tie?

Hopefully not.

Yes, but if so it's a silly error and it may be necessary to re-submit the requisition rather than just substituting names.

Two excellent suggestions. I'll work on a formula.

I'd agree with 4 out of 5. Hutton started very well in the pre-season apparently and has been unfortunate with injury. IF Black gets suspended (a distinct possibility) then we will need him.

Would be nice to see us playing 3 strikers; but it seems unlikely. However, Little on the right, Templeton on the left and Clark & Daly though the middle is an exciting prospect. Assuming Law is a shoe in, then it would be between Black and McLoed for a starting spot in MF. However, Black may not be in contention.........

He was a very good prospect at one point; something wrong somewhere.

I think your selection may well be the closest because when push comes to shove, Faure may suffer from McCoist's JIG syndrome (although Bluedell is right to point out that he was left on the bench v Newcastle) and at the moment McLoed would start ahead of Templeton. But if/when he gets back to full fitness/form I would expect Temps to start because he and Law are the only true match winners we have.

Another own goal?

Interesting and not a major surprise; but the difference is that right now, Shiels doesn't look like a starter, Miller would be.

If he brings Miller now or in January, he would HAVE to play him and assuming that Daly is an almost certain starter as well, then neither Little nor Clark would be likely to get a game most weeks.

Even big teams make schoolboy errors; but the statement is quite clear. Perhaps MCollCo will issue some form of clarification, no doubt downplaying it.

I think you're wrong there, Zappa, it looks like a bit of an own goal by McCollCo to me, or more like a tactical blunder early in the game, from which they can easily recover.

This would appear to be a slip up by the Requisitioners. Only the requisioners themselves as shareholders can sign the requisition. If McColl, Blin, Murray or any others own shares in a nominee name (an offshore company perhaps, here we go, here we go, here we go, again) then they would have to (a) prove that they are duly authorised by said entity to sign on behalf of said entity and (b) it would have to be so stated on the requisition. In other words something like: JAMES MCCOLL (for and on behalf of Monaco Holdings sa) ................................................ (signature) I would be utterly shocked if Blin had slipped up in this way and it seems equally remiss of McCollCo's lawyers not to ask for such assurances and proofs before submiting the Requisition. It would appear that the Board's lawyers have asked the obvious question and the Requisitioners have gone, whoopsssss; so they are now on the back foot. For the avoidance of doubt I know nothing of anyone's shareholdings and Monaco Holdings sa is entirely a figment of my imagination.