ian1964

I can't wait until we are all just on here to talk about football,Rangers games in particular.

Arab Trust statement Quote: After being asked by several media outlets for comment, here is ArabTRUST's response to several reports from last night and this morning in relation to a statement made by Rangers Fans Fighting Fund Chairman Andrew McCormick. "We fail to see why the current situation at Rangers should be used, by some, to fuel divisions between rival sets of supporters. This cannot be good for the game. However, with regard to the comments in respect of the abandoned match at Tannadice, the Club advised that the decision to charge less than half price admission to both home and away fans for the replayed match referred to was due to extenuating circumstances, particularly the police and stewarding costs associated with any match involving an Old Firm club. Any residual amount over and above the operational costs of staging the match was reported as donated to the United for Kids appeal. "Far from being "disdainful", the Club's actions were supported by the SPL and, indeed, in the Sheriff Court when challenged by one Rangers supporters' club. However in view of the Fighting Fund's stated reason for not paying Dundee United, it is somewhat ironic that their funds, donated by supporters, are now being used to settle the amount owed by their club for tickets which they, the supporters, had already paid for. The football authorities must now take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the rules of their competitions, including those involving financial fair play and settlement, are fully complied with to avoid further disputes and unnecessary tension between fans." Derek Robertson, ArabTRUST Chairman

Published on Thursday 29 March 2012 12:33 Imagine if referees spoke about managers the way some managers speak about referees. Take Neil Lennon, for instance. Picture a scene that has Willie Collum taking questions from journalists after this seasonâ??s League Cup final: â??Willie, your decision to deny Celtic a penalty has been described as â??criminalâ?? by Neil Lennon. How do you respond?â? â??Criminal? From the man who thought it was a good idea to start Kelvin Wilson at centre-half? Aye, right.â? â??But didnâ??t you get it wrong?â? â??Not as wrong as Lenny got it. He was up against a team with a tiny fraction of Celticâ??s budget today and he failed.â? â??He says that decision was the key moment and you stuffed it up...â? â??Right. Nothing to do with Gary Hooperâ??s miss or all the other misses? He doesnâ??t blame anybody but the referee? Maybe he should look in the mirror.â? â??He says you cost him a treble...â? â??I say thatâ??s a pretty arrogant statement.â? Revenge of the whistlersâ??. Oh what fun we would have if they could trade insults with managers. Sunday would have been incredible if the officials were given the right to reply. Weâ??d still be there now transcribing the tit-for-tat. Lennon comes in and blasts Calum Murray and Iain Brines and then the two boys are afforded an opportunity to respond? Wow. â??Iain, weâ??ve just had Lenny in here and he says that during the first half you came over to have â??a wordâ?? with him...â? â??It was more than â??a wordâ? to be fair. I warned him about his behaviour. Heâ??s not exactly telling the whole truth there.â? â??Calum, he says that your decision to send off Cha Du-Ri was a joke...â? â??It was a decision I had to make in a split-second. Neil had a week to pick his team and he still made a mistake putting Ki in his midfield. Weâ??re not perfect, any of us.â? The point of this sketch is that Lennon has demanded a level of precision from officials these past weeks while at the same time apparently refusing to apply the same lofty standards to himself and his team. Referees are the easiest scapegoats sometimes. A manager knows they have to soak up criticism without responding to it. For some bosses itâ??s a handy deflection tactic. The tactics are wrong and the result is bad? Letâ??s hammer the ref and change the headlines. Lennon talks witheringly â?? and correctly â?? of the ridiculous suggestion that their title, when it comes, will be tainted because of Rangersâ?? ten-point deduction but at the same time he sees no problem in calling Rangersâ?? victory on Sunday â??souredâ? while stating that â??there are mitigating circumstances in the way theyâ??ve won.â? He was talking about the red cards and the second Rangers goal, which he thought was offside, but any reasonable analysis of the game would have to mention that even before Cha was dismissed Celtic were being over-run and out-played, an admission we have not heard from Lennon as yet. Most managers view their football world through one eye. Lennon and his contemporaries donâ??t want consistency from referees, they want decisions, good or bad, in their favour. If this was about integrity and fairness, where were Lennonâ??s condemnatory words for the officials when Lee Wallaceâ??s header in the Old Firm game in December was not given despite pictures showing that it was probably a goal? Where was his criticism of refereeing standards when Hearts were denied a perfectly legitimate goal against Celtic last month? Why did he not protest when Georgios Samaras collapsed in a heap under a non-challenge from Invernessâ?? Greg Tansey earlier in the season? Tansey got sent off unfairly and Celtic went on to win. Referees are imperfect, just like players and just like managers. If the guy with the whistle made a mistake last Sunday then Lennon should have the good grace to admit that he wasnâ??t the only one. http://www.scotsman.com/news/tom-english-lennon-would-get-shock-if-refs-retaliated-1-2202101

FORMER Ibrox chief executive Martin Bain today abandoned his £1.3million legal action against Rangers. His legal firm, Glasgow-based Levy & McRae, confirmed Mr Bain would no longer be suing the club over his suspension last year. He had claimed £1.3m in damages after alleging his contract with Rangers had been breached following Craig Whyte’s takeover. He stressed his legal action had been aimed at owner Craig Whyte and not the club. Through his lawyers, Mr Bain, said: "I strongly recommended on more than one occasion that Craig Whyte should not be allowed to buy the club, based on investigations into the transparency of his background and the responses to the questions asked of him as part of the process. "Unfortunately, that forceful representation was not accepted and when he took over I was suspended and my contract ripped up. "With what has subsequently transpired, it is quite obvious why he disposed of me in the manner he did." The ex-director had £480,000 of the club’s assets frozen in September, pending a settlement. However, Mr Bain has now said he is ready to return this sum – minus his legal expenses – to club administrators. He said: "Events have moved on and the damage inflicted on Rangers Football Club is shocking. "I had no option but to pursue a claim based on Craig Whyte’s actions. The litigation was a response to his actions and not those of Rangers Football Club. "I firmly believed it was important to make sure he would have to explain everything he did in a court of law." "Everyone close to Rangers Football Club knows I am, and always have been, totally committed to the club. That remains my position. "As chief executive and part of the independent board, our job was to assess and highlight to all stakeholders if we believed there was uncertainty over the future financial viability of the club under new ownership. "Unfortunately, the independent board had no legal power to block the transaction and Sir David Murray made it plain he wanted to sell." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/m...gers-1.1155973

DUFF and Phelps, administrators of Rangers Football Club, today issued the following statement. Paul Clark, joint administrator, said: "We are pleased Martin Bain has, in light of the present situation at Rangers, offered to drop his action for damages following his dismissal by Craig Whyte whilst Chairman. "Mr Bain has also agreed to release to the Club a significant proportion of the sum that was arrested as part of this action. He has made plain the litigation was a response to the actions of Craig Whyte and not Rangers FC and given developments he now wishes to end the litigation action and do what he can to support the Club in these difficult times. "Duff & Phelps have agreed to settle the litigation with Mr Bain thereby avoiding the unnecessary costs of continuing with this court action. "On other litigation matters, on 23 March the High Court in London ordered that in addition to the current proceedings regarding the £3.6m that was transferred into the safekeeping of the administrators' lawyers, Taylor Wessing, the parties with claims against Collyer Bristow (the former lawyers to Craig Whyte and Rangers FC) should bring their claims by 16 April 2012. "This has widened the court proceedings because we have substantially larger claims against Collyer Bristow, which we wish to bring as soon as possible. The original trial dates of 30 March - 4 April are now not being utilised as the wider claims are still being formulated. A further hearing will take place as soon as possible after the deadline for claims against Collyer Bristow of 16 April. "As regards the general administration process, we, as the Club's administrators, would like to pay tribute to Rangers supporters for their continuing outstanding efforts to support the Club at this time. "We appreciate greatly the contributions made to the Rangers Fighting Fund and welcome the fact that those who are administering the fund have taken the decision to release funds which will offset some of the debts owed by the Club to other clubs." http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/football-news/article/2701997

Right decision. TLB was just throwing the toys out of the pram as he does every time his team of world class players get beat.

FORMER Ibrox chief executive Martin Bain today abandoned his £1.3million legal action against Rangers. His legal firm, Glasgow-based Levy & McRae, confirmed Mr Bain would no longer be suing the club over his suspension last year. He had claimed £1.3m in damages after alleging his contract with Rangers had been breached following Craig Whyte’s takeover. He stressed his legal action had been aimed at owner Craig Whyte and not the club. Through his lawyers, Mr Bain, said: "I strongly recommended on more than one occasion that Craig Whyte should not be allowed to buy the club, based on investigations into the transparency of his background and the responses to the questions asked of him as part of the process. "Unfortunately, that forceful representation was not accepted and when he took over I was suspended and my contract ripped up. "With what has subsequently transpired, it is quite obvious why he disposed of me in the manner he did." The ex-director had £480,000 of the club’s assets frozen in September, pending a settlement. However, Mr Bain has now said he is ready to return this sum – minus his legal expenses – to club administrators. He said: "Events have moved on and the damage inflicted on Rangers Football Club is shocking. "I had no option but to pursue a claim based on Craig Whyte’s actions. The litigation was a response to his actions and not those of Rangers Football Club. "I firmly believed it was important to make sure he would have to explain everything he did in a court of law." "Everyone close to Rangers Football Club knows I am, and always have been, totally committed to the club. That remains my position. "As chief executive and part of the independent board, our job was to assess and highlight to all stakeholders if we believed there was uncertainty over the future financial viability of the club under new ownership. "Unfortunately, the independent board had no legal power to block the transaction and Sir David Murray made it plain he wanted to sell." http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/martin-bain-to-drop-legal-claim-against-rangers-1.1155973

From BBC Scotland

It was the prospect of earning more money that originally brought the Scottish Premier League clubs together, and it is the same inclination that is now dividing them again. Each team is protecting its own interests, but that then leaves the question: who is thinking about what is best for Scottish football as a whole? It should be the SPL teams. The moment they chose to break away from the Scottish Football League to set up their own top tier, they were taking on responsibility for the state of the game at the highest level in this country. All 12 clubs own a share in the SPL, they run it, and so they have an obligation to make decisions that seek to strengthen and improve the top-flight; they do not have the luxury to be driven solely be self-interest. Yet both the Old Firm and the Gang of Ten non-Old Firm clubs accuse each other of that, of guarding their own imperatives. It is self-defeating to damn either side. Celtic and Rangers are responsible for generating the vast majority of Scottish football income, through the broadcast deal, commercial and sponsorship arrangements, and for maintaining the European co-efficient. They are global brands, two of the biggest clubs in world football, with a rivalry that is unique, and they should be valued by Scottish football. They should not, however, be allowed to run the game on their own terms. The Gang of Ten are responsible for the situation they find themselves in, having agreed to the 11-1 voting rights in their rush to leave the SFL behind and, on the coat-tails of the Old Firm, chase extra revenue. Short-term decisions made then continue to hamper Scottish football, but short-term decisions being made now will do the same. Rangers and Celtic want to protect their income, and are happy to browbeat the other SPL clubs, knowing that they are the wealth generators. In that case, the game will remain in the state it is in just now: weakened, uncertain, unable to flourish to its full potential. Yet the same applies to the Old Firm. Their argument is that they would be diminished by a fairer split of the television revenue, while the change to the 11-1 voting majority, to say 9-3, would leave them vulnerable to the greed of other clubs, specifically on the issue of splitting gate receipts (even although the Gang of Ten insists this is not on their agenda). Giving a little more money to the other clubs, and taking a little less each, would not significantly weaken Rangers or Celtic. The TV revenue represents a small percentage of their income, but would be a large percentage of the income of the other 10 clubs. The Old Firm could comfortably absorb the small, in relative terms, drop in revenue, while at the same time allowing their fellow clubs to strengthen. If they are uncomfortable about changing the voting, then they could ring-fence sensitive issues, such as gate receipts, and open up more decisions to a 9-3 majority. What do they need the other 10 for? Competition. So why stifle it? What if Dundee United had not needed to sell, or allow to leave, so many members of the Scottish Cup winning team? What if Motherwell, despite finishing either second or third this season, hadn't already told Stuart McCall, the manager, to cut his budget next season? Other SPL clubs carry debts, but they are all â?? perhaps Hearts apart â?? running on stable, if narrow, financial limits. Some more income would make a significant impact. And a stronger overall SPL makes for a stronger Rangers and Celtic. This is the law of sporting competition, not the law of capitalism. It is misleading to say that football clubs are businesses and so must submit to economic imperatives. They are not conventional businesses, they are social and community, as well as sporting, bodies. Competition is healthy. Running a league by self-interest, and for the benefit of only two of its 12 clubs, is short-sighted. The better the SPL is as a whole, the better its individual parts must be. The Old Firm, and the rest of the SPL clubs, have a responsibility to do what is right for the game. Where is the consensus? Who is prepared to act radically, instead of just talking about it? http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/self-interest-stalemate-must-be-broken-by-responsible-radicalism.17166144

He knows feck all though,only what the BHEASTS tell him:smile:

Hmmmmmmmm,this will be very interesting!.

TGFITW.............indeed................................I think not!

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/301917-martin-bain-drops-13m-legal-case-against-rangers/

You have to ask if everyone that donated to the fund would want someone else deciding where and what the money raised should be spent,whe we were told it was for Rangers players and staff. Fuck Dunfermline & DUTD,I'm more concerned with Rangers FC

I think it's best for me to just not post Leggats' blog as it seems to be causing a wee bit of a stir,we have far more important things to think about right now.

£100k fines in five years as Uefa punishes Celtic again By STEPHEN HALLIDAY Published on Thursday 29 March 2012 05:38 CELTIC have been punished for the fifth time in as many years by Uefa for the conduct of their supporters, taking the total amount of fines imposed on the club by European football’s governing body in that period to over £100,000. The latest sanction handed out by Uefa’s Control and Disciplinary Body was confirmed yesterday, a £21,000 fine for displaying an offensive banner and setting off fireworks during the Europa League Group I fixture against Udinese in Italy on 15 December. The charge was originally scheduled to be heard on 26 January but was postponed for a month by Uefa due to a backlog of cases. It was subsequently reported that Uefa had put Celtic’s hearing back again, until today’s date of 29 March, for the same reason. But a Uefa spokesman yesterday revealed that the Control and Disciplinary Body had, in fact, found Celtic guilty on 23 February and issued the €25,000 fine. Unlike previous occasions, details were not published on Uefa’s official website. Celtic, who immediately told Uefa they would not appeal against the verdict, also made no public acknowledgement of the fine. “It was mistakenly reported that the case was postponed again until March,” said a Uefa spokesman last night. “We do not publish every decision of the Control and Disciplinary Body on our website, there are so many cases.” A section of the 800-strong Celtic support at the Friuli Stadium unveiled a banner with the message “F*** Uefa” and let off flares shortly before kick-off at the match which came just three days after the club had been fined £12,700 for “illicit” pro-IRA chants from their fans during the earlier Group I game at home to Rennes on 3 November. Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell, who had condemned the chanting at the Rennes fixture and subsequently pledged to stamp it out, was visibly angered at the form of protest made by some of the club’s followers in Udine. The day after the match, he described them as a “rogue element” and accused them of “embarrassing” the club. Neil Lennon, the Celtic manager, was even stronger in his denunciation of those involved, insisting they were “hell bent on damaging the reputation of the club”. There is no doubt that Celtic, who received Uefa’s Fair Play award for the positive behaviour of their supporters at the 2003 Uefa Cup final in Seville, have now compiled a dismal charge sheet from the Nyon disciplinary body as a result of the recidivism displayed over the last five years. In March 2007, the club received a nominal £420 fine for two incidents of plastic bottles being thrown towards the pitch at the San Siro Stadium during a Champions League match against AC Milan. Seven months later, Celtic were found guilty of improper conduct by supporters and lack of organisation during another Champions League game against Milan at Parkhead which saw one fan enter the pitch and confront visiting goalkeeper Dida. Celtic were fined £25,000 on that occasion, half of the amount suspended for a two-year probationary period, while Dida received a two-match suspension for unsporting behaviour after reacting theatrically to the incident. In November 2008, a supporter was able to invade the pitch once more during Celtic’s home Champions League match against Manchester United. Uefa found Celtic guilty of improper conduct again, with a late kick-off to the match also cited as reason for the punishment, and fined them £42,400. The latest fine means Celtic have had to pay out a total of £101,520 to Uefa since 2007. http://www.scotsman.com/news/100k-fines-in-five-years-as-uefa-punishes-celtic-again-1-2202008

The Rangers Fans Fighting Fund, set up by supporters to assist the clubâ??s current financial difficulties, today pledged to pay Rangers outstanding debt of £22,000 to Dunfermline. The Fund will use some of its £250,000 balance to pay money owed by Rangers to Dunfermline who have not been reimbursed for tickets sold for a recent League game against the Ibrox club, prior to their going into administration. Dunfermline had admitted that the loss of this expected revenue had caused them financial difficulties, and former Rangers legend Sandy Jardine will go to Dunfermline on Friday on behalf of the Fund and personally hand over the cheque to Dunfermline Chairman John Yorkston Andrew McCormick, Chairman of the RFFF said: â??After some discussion it was agreed that we should use some of the money collected by our fans to pay off this outstanding debt. This is a debt of honour to a club of honour. â??Consideration was also given to using some more of the funds to pay off money owed to Dundee United. But that was rejected as there were strong views that, in recent times, Dundee United had treated Rangers and their fans with disdain.â? Rangers fans were angry last season when Dundee United levied an extra charge on Rangers ticket holders if they wished to attend an abandoned game at Tannadice.â? â??Like everyone else connected to the club, we are aware of the Rangers standing and their responsibilities to the rest of the game in Scotland â??We believe that spending some of our funds this way is only fair to Dunfermline who are suffering because of a situation that was not of their making. â??It also demonstrates to the Scottish football authorities that Rangers fans not only have an allegiance to the club â?? but are aware of the impact the clubâ??s situation is having elsewhere in the game. â??The Fans Fighting Fund is doing this on behalf of Rangers Football Club as we believe this the proper course of action. â??We would hope this is not only noted by the Scottish football authorities but will have a strong impact when certain charges against the club are debated by the SFA on Thursday of this week"

I watch these games with just a passing interest,I might not even watch it all,give me the Rangers against even Elgin and I get all excited:rfcbouncy:

Tis the reason I post a lot of pish:smile:

Very,very,very slow!

I actually agree with the criticism towards his blog to be honest. I was just wondering why bother reading it if you don't like what he writes. I like to read what he has to say as much as I like to read most things that are relevant to Rangers. I suppose I can take or leave him,but I certainly don't believe everything he writes,much the same as when I post articles from the the rHags,but I like to read them. And he is pro Rangers.

It's quite clear that a lot of posters on gersnet don't like Leggats' blog,fair enough,but why bother reading it then?,and why bother replying?.

CELTIC have been fined £17,000 by Uefa for incidents relating to the behaviour of their fans in the Europa League game against Udinese in Italy last December. It was thought a hearing tomorrow would deal with charges brought against the Parkhead club which related to fans â??displaying an offensive banner and setting off fireworksâ? in their match against the Serie A side on December 15. But the decision to fine Celtic was actually made by Uefaâ??s disciplinary body on February 24. The outcome was not made public by the governing body or the club, and only came to light today when enquiries were made to Uefa as to whether the Celtic case was on the disciplinary and control committee agenda tomorrow in Nyon, Switzerland. It is believed Celtic have accepted the fine without exercising their right to appeal. Celtic banned one fan for life for the banner and for attacking a steward in Udineseâ??s Stadio Friuli. Prior to the game in Udinese, Celtic were fined £12,700 for â??illicit chantingâ? by a section of their support in an earlier Europa League Group I home game against Rennes. Meanwhile, Victor Wanyama could be set to miss Celticâ??s title-winning party â?? even if the Hoops donâ??t get over the line until they play Kilmarnock a week on Saturday. The SFA have confirmed the Kenyan midfielder must serve a two-game ban for the red card he received at Ibrox last weekend. Referee Calum Murray deemed Wanyamaâ??s two-footed tackle on Steven Whittaker serious foul play. This carries a two-match suspension, which takes effect immediately and covers all competitions. So the 20-year-old will be in the Celtic Park stand for Sundayâ??s match against St Johnstone which, if Rangers drop points at Motherwell the day before, will provide Neil Lennonâ??s side with a second opportunity to clinch the championship after they failed to complete the job at Ibrox. Wanyama will also be suspended for the following match, at Rugby Park on April 7. http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/celtic-cop-17k-fine-over-uefa-fan-slurs-1.1155699

RANGERSâ?? administrators are set to rack up a £3million bill if the saga drags on into the start of next season, it emerged last night. The Ibrox club face starting next term with a 10-point deduction in the SPL. Administrators Duff & Phelps â?? who yesterday said it could take months to pick which of five bidders will buy the club â?? are charging up to £654 an hour for each member of their staffâ??s service. Their bill will wipe out three months of savings agreed by players who took salary cuts of up to 75per cent. Prospective bidders for the club have yet to be invited to look over the books and get sight of the clubâ??s tangled finances in the wake of Craig Whyteâ??s reign. Asked about a timescale for the sale, a Duff & Phelps spokesman said: â??We do feel we have to manage expectations with this. â??We have five bids in and we are looking at them. We need to carry out due diligence and the hope is we can reduce those bids down to two or three. â??It could take weeks or months.â? The company would only say they â??hopeâ? that a new owner would be in place by the start of the new season, but refused to rule out the possibility that would not happen. Many firms go in and out of administration in days, with finance experts moving swiftly to slash costs and find a buyer. If Duff & Phelps are still in place when the new season starts, they will have run up a bill for 25 weeksâ?? work â?? with expenses such as air fares and hotel bills on top. Their spokesman declined to comment on their charges to Rangers. The news came amid internet speculation about St Mirren director Ken McGeochâ??s links to Rangers secretary Gary Withey. McGeoch was told to quit the Paisley board yesterday after he was said to have shown information about playersâ?? contracts to Withey... in the St Mirren boardroom. The revelation prompted anger from Saints fans. McGeoch has previously attempted to buy the Paisley club. And some fans claim his offer may have been connected to a reputed plan to merge St Mirren with Rangers to let the Ibrox club back into the league if they go into liquidation. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/03/28/revealed-rangers-administrators-run-up-3m-bill-and-still-no-sign-of-a-buyer-for-troubled-ibrox-club-86908-23804107/

By STUART BATHGATE and STEPHEN HALLIDAY Published on Wednesday 28 March 2012 00:03 DUNFERMLINE chairman John Yorkston has claimed that the ten non-Old Firm clubs could resign from the Scottish Premier League if Celtic and Rangers go ahead with their intention to block voting reform. In yesterdayâ??s Scotsman, SPL chairman Ralph Topping urged the administrators at Ibrox to declare their hand in public on the issue. Topping called for a collective approach from all 12 clubs to solve the current problems afflicting Scottish football and branded the actions of the so-called â??Gang of Tenâ? as â??not the smartest thingâ?. Last night sources close to Duff & Phelps, in charge of the Ibrox club since they went into administration on 14 February, confirmed that they, like Celtic, are opposed to any alteration to the current arrangement which at present requires an 11-1 majority to pass any major SPL policy decision. But Yorkston said that he would carry on the battle for a more democratic set-up, and would not rule out the option of resignation by the non-Old Firm ten. â??I expected it,â? he said of the confirmation of Rangersâ?? intention. â??But Iâ??m disappointed democracy has not come to Scottish football. â??One option is for the ten of us to resign and leave the league, similar to what happened before when the SPL was set up. Weâ??re not prepared to put up with this 11-1 vote any longer.â? Asked if that was an option he would consider, Yorkston added: â??I would vote for resignation, but it does depend on the other ten. If the other two are going to keep voting against our proposal for reform, it leaves the rest of us to consider our position.â? The weighted voting system, passed by all of the inaugural members when leading clubs split from the Scottish Football League to form the SPL in 1998, effectively gives the Old Firm the power of veto over any proposal to which they object. The ten other clubs held a meeting last week at which they agreed to pursue change at a special general meeting of the SPL at Hampden on 12 April. Their key proposal will be scrapping the 11-1 vote and replacing it with a 9-3 majority required for all decisions taken by the SPL. Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell was quick to condemn the move, branding the meeting of the ten clubs as â??disrespectfulâ? and â??divisiveâ?. He stressed the financial importance of the Old Firm to the SPL and claimed that any diminution of their influence could weaken Scottish football â??to the point that we wonâ??t have any European context at all.â? While the ten clubs fully anticipated Celticâ??s opposition, they were hopeful that the current financial crisis enveloping Rangers may present a situation where they could persuade the administrators to vote with them on 12 April. Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston, another of the leading figures behind the move by the ten clubs, said: â??It might make it easier for the administrators to get whatever they are going to try to achieve, whether it is a Company Voluntary Arrangement or new company to be formed and rejoining the SPL and SFA. The support of the ten clubs might be needed at some point. â??This is a pro-democracy movement. â??We have this oppressive regime at the moment where you require an 11-1 majority in order to achieve any major change and that canâ??t be healthy for any organisation. â??Thereâ??s definitely a mood for change and, if weâ??re going to have radical change, then there has to be a more flexible voting structure.â? It is now clear, however, that the mutual interests of Celtic and Rangers have not in any way been affected by the Ibrox clubâ??s problems. On the contrary, it is understood Rangersâ?? administrators believe the club would be less attractive to potential purchasers if they no longer held the voting power to ensure the Old Firm have the lionâ??s share of television income and commercial revenue. The SPLâ??s current sponsorship deal with Clydesdale Bank, worth in excess of £2million a season, expires at the end of next season. A new £80m television contract with Sky and ESPN, which is dependent on the provision of four Old Firm fixtures a season, begins next season. It remains to be seen if the ten non-Old Firm clubs can obtain any degree of compromise over a more equitable share of income, although last nightâ??s developments suggested that the factions remain as far apart as ever. http://www.scotsman.com/news/spl-tv-deal-gang-of-ten-could-quit-league-over-votes-reform-1-2199629