der Berliner

Ah well, sporting integrity and all ... To Hell or Connacht, may you burn in Hell tonight! Belgium model ... and I was thinking that the current split mumbo-jumbo was odd.

Can we actually "apply" for a certain division or will that be determined at a higher place?

You'd hope that he and hisremarks above can convince Edu and Bedoya to stay on. We have promotion to chase and while they may not get CL football for some time, they will become legends in this shrine of football.

As with most Rangers players leaving, I don't wish them any harm. I can't say I like it, or feeling good about it. From day one I knew that Jelavic was in for a short term, unless we would get into the CL again - maybe. I can see that many people do not view e.g. Everton as the club a Jelavic should aim at, but again, I wouldn't be surprised if the Toffies are just another stepping stone for him. He was simply not bound to be snapped up by ManU, ManC, Arsenal et al, who usually (!) do not scour the Scottish market for top quality. With Fleck, who has been at Ibrox since he was a boy, who has tasted European football, Scottish league and cup stuff, the story is obviously different. He was going to be second or third fiddle for years to come, had we progressed as usual last season. He strikes me of the sort of ambitious guy who always wants to be involved. It is therefore quite strange that he jumped ship when his chances of progressing at Rangers are greatest. That is something he will have to live with, as his brother had all those years ago. That will haunt him forever and IMHO is pain enough. Hence, farethee well and thanks for the memories. BTW, I am rather dissapointed with McCabe too, for he would have been a cert in any future line-up.

As some financial chap said last week, if they do this without consulting their shareholders, many boards may be in for some serious problems.

Yes! Hit him while you can! :box: :devil:

Agree with all of what you are saying apart from ... Jacobean? It would be Jacobite, if I assume correctly, and that was 500 years after Wallace and Co.. And matter of fact, it was something different entirely.

Well, I think right now he just needs to look out of the window or take up nigh any paper he wants. The various levels of animosity differ though.

Read the article and simply put, it is all about causing factions amongst the support and more stories to write about.

Well, he sure uses some strong words. One would hope he'll face our enemies in the same way.

A thread opener from Nookie Bear on FF Ok, so everyone is starting to panic about the sanctions the SFA want to place on us in return for SFA membership. There appear to be 3 major threats to membership and we all need to understand these before we start to scream about them, I'll explain why. 1. Payment of any outstanding fines This is the easy one, we may not like it, but this is the one sanction we WILL have to agree to. Fines for rule breaks are deemed as sporting punishments, not debts, therefore we will be liable for the £160k in fines that was imposed by the SFA for the disrepute charge in relation to the non-payment of PAYE/NIC by Whyte. We might not agree with it, but unfortunately they are the rules and as part of our continuing membership of the SFA we have to abide by it. 2. Payment of Footballing Debts This is where it becomes difficult, if by footballing debts, the SFA are referring to any transfer fees & ticket monies owed to other clubs and/or wages owed to players due to deferment during Administration, there is a case to argue. Quite simply, in Scotland, there is NO Football Creditors law. I don't know how many times I need to explain this, but in Scotland, unlike England & Wales, there is no law that allows for all Football Creditors to be paid in FULL and BEFORE even SECURED creditors. This means that any attempt by the SFA/SPL to make Rangers pay any outstanding fees/ticket money/wages is ILLEGAL Under Scottish law, these creditors are and must be treated exactly the same way as any other unsecured creditor. This means that any attempt to settle these debts in full, would be illegal. This would also make any directors of the new company liable for a contempt of court charge, for being in breach of a winding up order. It could also make the new company liable in full for the debts of the old company, and create a second admin/liquidation scenario. Legally, this cannot be enforced by the SFA, they would be effectively forcing the directors to break the law in return for continuation of membership. 3. The Waving Of A Right To A Legal Challenge Yes, this can be done, but usually only because a company is trying to prevent an employee from continuing legal action after they have already accepted some kind of incentive to bring an existing issue to a conclusion that is suitable for all parties (usually the payment of some form of compensation). However, if and this is the big if, that agreement in itself would be illegal (in this case, the preferential treatment of some creditors regardless of insolvency laws) that would also invalidate said agreement waiving the rights of legal challenge for the affected parties. In short, the SFA cannot force te club to do something that is ILLEGAL, and then prevent them from taking legal action to challenge this. As a result of this, it is likely that they will attempt to go after other means, in an attempt to deliver "justice" Just remember we currently hold all the Aces, it may not seem like it, but the SPL document that was delivered to all SFL clubs proves the importance of having Rangers in the Scottish game to ensure its survival. To paraphrase a couple of points: "Rangers in Division One, this would result in a loss of around 30% of revenue, a large amount, however this would result in a position from which it IS possible to financially recover from" "Rangers in Division Three, this would strip the game of approx £16million per year, result in the withdrawal of sponsors and create massive financial problems for all clubs, some that would be unacceptable" "Finally, the termination/suspension of Rangers membership would cause TOTAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN in the Scottish game, yes the game would survive, but at what cost and in what form? This CANNOT be allowed to happen" Unbelievably, we are the ones with power, we just need to use it wisely, if they insist on "punishing" us too severely, well we just insist on Division Three, they have to let us in, in their own words, we CANNOT be allowed to disappear from Scottish football entirely, have faith fellow bears, the stakes in this poker game have just got a helluva lot higher, we have the power to save or destroy Scottish football in its entirety in our hands.

Well, maybe we should allocate votes on anything much like political parties get theirs? Based on average attendance figures, revaluated after every season. That is democracy for you then.

So can people name us cheaters unpunished now? Without any substantial evidence? Well, this is what happens when you have people getting their info from the unbiased and impartial media. Would such a statement come under the legal scrutiny, for e.g. defamation/libel? Can we set our QC on somesuch?

They were writing as a I wrote ... Essentially, the DD were simply renewed, but once you cancel your season ticket, nothing will be charged. It is, thus, essentially nothing more than a technicality.

Just stumbled across this rubbish again ... That happens when the club and the company share the same names. Whether they do this out of spite, to mock us or simply being incompetent does not matter to me. It is annoying and misleading.

Stopped reading here. If they cannot get their facts right here, why should I believe anything they write at all?

Democracy is a fine thing, you know. Sometimes though, it simply doesn't work. What next? Shall we incorporate all wishful-thinkers from all over Scotland into the SFL ahead of Rangers? For the sake of ... wait ... sporting integrity?

I think we will hear about this from an official source in due course, no? It looks a touch strange to me, but may well be down to a communication breakdown when the payment orders were shifted.

Just imagine .... the police establishes that we have been a victim of fraud (by Whyte) and Regan and Lawwell knew about it and let this continue. This could be rather nasty, and not just for the SFA and some moral-standard bearers in the SPL/SFL.

Rangers Holding, and certainly no 2012 in there.

We have to be clever here. As it looks, Lawwell and Regan may have had previous knowledge about Whyte's dealings and this would put the SFA into all sorts of trouble - sporting integrity, you know. So we have to consider our punches carefully.

Matter of fact, I wonder whether you can actually give up your legal rights? I would suspect that unless this gets more detailed, nothing will be signed. No instution, especially none that is hardly run on a democratic and impartial basis, shall ever get a card blanche.

Indeed. It is utterly annoying to have the press going on about the "liquidation of Rangers", which essentially is half-truth made fact.

Who stops the RFFF et al entering a legal battle with the SFA though? Right now, Rangers need membership of the SFA and the SFL to live past summer, I would assume.

If I remember it correctly, the first ideas about potential penalties to a newco Rangers for three seasons on the trot and/or 1/3 of the previous season's points total came out of Celtic boards or from the RTC site. And right on cue, such ideas have made it into the decision pools of the SPL. Anyone knows someone from Anonymous?