Search the Community

I see there is a thread over on FF about this, does anyone think the SFA would apply for special permission for Rangers if we were to win the Scottish Cup,as per UEFA article 15 below?. It would be nice to be in a position to ask the SFA for this!. 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 t he one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other t han 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. Such an extraordinary application applies only to th e specific club and for the season in question. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/uefaorg/Clublicensing/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

From the DR: from the BBC: So the fine for repeat offences actually goes down???? Given the number of charges that have been raised against us for "offensive" singing/chanting.....UEFA must be paying us now....

STV - 12 September 2013 00:01 BST Rangers midfielder Ian Black will go before a Scottish Football Association committee on Thursday to answer accusations of betting against his own club on three occasions. The former Inverness CT and Hearts player is accused of putting money on his team to not win matches between March 4, 2006 and July 28, 2013. Black is also accused of betting on a further ten games in which the club he was playing for were involved in, as well as betting on a further 147 games not involving his team. It is not known which specific fixtures he is accused of placing bets on which involved the clubs he was registered with. The Scottish FA have stated that there is no evidence to suggest the player acted in a manner or influenced proceedings during a game which led to him making money. STV understands the most recent match Black bet upon was Rangers' tie with Albion Rovers in the Ramsdens Cup on July 28, 2013. Rangers won the game 4-0. It is also understood that the player's actions came to light through his use of a Ladbrokes phone account. Footballers registered in Scotland are prohibited by the Scottish FA from betting on any football match. If found guilty, players can be fined from £500 to £1,000,000 and can be either suspended or expelled from playing professional football. They are also not allowed to "behave in a manner, during or in connection with a match in which the party has participated or has any influence, either direct or indirect, which could give rise to an event in which they or any third party benefits financially through betting". The Scottish FA however have made clear there is "no evidence" to suggest Black has breached the second rule. When the allegations were first made, a Rangers spokesperson said: "The club is aware of the SFA's notice of complaint and are currently investigating the matter." http://news.stv.tv/west-central/239202-rangers-ian-black-to-go-before-sfa-committee-over-betting-claims/

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/4989-club-statement

Neil Doncaster has stressed that he remains comfortable with the situation where the Scottish Professional Football League is still to find a title sponsor as the season enters its first break for international matches. The new league set-up has been in operation for more than a month, and the reconstruction was formally completed at the end of June. The fact that the SPFL continues with no title sponsor has provoked concern in some circles. Doncaster again insisted that it is not a significant problem. He also played down yesterday the extent to which finance from a title sponsor impacts on clubs when compared to revenue brought in from broadcasting deals already in place. The chief executive pointed out that he is content to take his time “to find the right sponsor, rather than the first one that comes along”. The recent controversy surrounding Wonga’s sponsorship of Newcastle United, which led to striker Papiss Cisse briefly threatening to refuse to wear a shirt promoting a payday lender, highlighted how an association with certain brands can lead to problems. Doncaster wants a sponsor that enhances the image of professional football in Scotland. “It’s clearly important that we get the right sponsor rather than do something quickly,” said Doncaster, before adding that “we shouldn’t get carried away” with the notion that the financial guarantees from having a title sponsor in place would transform the Scottish game. The deal the Clydesdale Bank struck was worth £8 million a year to the Scottish Premier League when originally signed in 2007. No figure was publicised when the contract was extended in 2010. The association between the bank and Scotland’s top flight ended last season. Irn Bru’s sponsorship of the Scottish Football League – worth in excess of £3 million over the course of the last three years – also expired earlier this summer. “It’s certainly the current focus but we shouldn’t get carried away by the amount of money that it contributes to the game,” said Doncaster. “The vast majority of money that goes into the game through the SPFL comes through broadcast rights – something like 90-95 percent of the entire pot and all of that is secured already. “So you are talking about something that is important, of course, but it’s not fundamental to the finances of the game.” Doncaster added that the SPFL is “flexible” when it comes to the specific details of a sponsorship deal, and whether all four leagues would need to be sold as one sponsorship package or could be separated. “We’ll be led very much by what sponsors would want to do,” he said. “There is an attraction for sponsors in having all 42 clubs, in having one sponsorship which covers the whole of the country – but that would be led by their requirements when we talk to them.” Doncaster insisted that securing new sponsors is not the only consideration at present. “I think it’s important that we continue to work hard on a number of different fronts, whilst remembering that we have two key roles at the SPFL,” he said. “One is to run a fair competition and the other is to commercialise that competition. “That has been a successful commercialisation to date, largely based on broadcasting. Of course sponsorship is important and work on that will continue but it will be done when it’s done.“It must be a partner that’s fit for the game and fit for the SPFL in terms of the image that it projects. We’ve had a number of expressions of interest from a number of different parties, but it’s important that we have the right brand for the SPFL at such an important time in its development. That’s worth waiting for.” Doncaster was speaking at a Murrayfield Stadium event held to encourage safe driving on Scotland’s country roads. The SPFL and the Scottish Rugby Union have joined forces to help promote a campaign spearheaded by former Formula 1 driver David Coulthard. Doncaster has welcomed the new spirit of cooperation that now exists between the SPFL and the Scottish Football Association, following Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell’s appointment to the main board of the SFA. “The relationship between the SPFL and the SFA is a good one and I think a much better one since the reconstruction’s completion on the 27th June,” he said. “It’s important that the SPFL is properly represented at the Scottish FA main board. We have one representative from the Professional Game Board and now Peter has been elected unopposed by the seven members of that body. “So we are very pleased to have effective representation at the main board following [former chairman] Ralph Topping’s excellent contribution to date. “I think there’s a genuinely collegiate atmosphere at the moment between the Scottish FA and the SPFL and that certainly makes it easier for both bodies to do the best that they can in their different spheres.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/neil-doncaster-relaxed-over-lack-of-spfl-sponsor-1-3076595

http://sport.stv.tv/football/238344-celtic-chief-executive-peter-lawwell-appointed-to-board-of-scottish-fa/ Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has been appointed to the board of the Scottish Football Association. The 54-year-old has been nominated as the representative of the Professional Game Board, which contributes to the running of football in Scotland. Lawwell joins the Scottish FA's chief Executive Stewart Regan, president Campbell Ogilvie, Alan McRae, Rod Petrie and Barrie Jackson on the board.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/164607084

Haven't seen this on RM or here but according to the Daily Mail today McColl's gang tried to bring back McClelland as the chairman. Absolutely frightful stuff if true. A real return to the old days when he was Murray's puppet and presided over record levels of debt. I'm neither here nor there with the current board and prospective future board. To me they all remind of the South Park episode where a douche and a turd compete with each other. But it's absolutely disparaging that our prospective leaders want a return of one of our past failures.

McColl statement: "Over the last couple of days we have been approached by members of the Rangers board seeking to explore whether there may be scope for a negotiation on the composition of the Rangers board which would avoid the need for a general meeting. "These discussions were conducted in good faith but unfortunately the board was unable to deliver the changes sought by the shareholders who have requisitioned the general meeting. "We are aware that the company is due to have its first AGM in October and so, in the interests of saving the club expense and time, we have discussed with the board a proposal to combine proceedings with the resolutions we sought as part of a general meeting being followed by the 'normal' business of the AGM. "To allow time to deal with the mechanics of combining the resolutions which would otherwise have come up at two separate meetings, we have agreed to give the company until close of business on Tuesday 27 August to agree the terms of the legal paperwork. "In the meantime we would encourage the board to make the changes that we believe are being demanded by the majority of stakeholders in the club."

Great post http://themanthebheastscanttame.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/always-bet-on-black/

Analysis: is Blue Knight Paul Murray fighting a losing battle? Hugh Macdonald Wednesday 21 August 201 THE shifting quicksands of the Rangers saga have consumed a variety of personalities. Charles Green, the bluff Yorkshireman from central casting, joined the ranks yet again of those who have been banished from the drama on the south side but a more significant character now has a leading role in what will happen at Ibrox. The name of Paul Murray was absent from a Rangers statement in the wake of the dismissal of Green as a consultant but it does not require the combined skills of Interpol to deduce that he forms a block to any immediate resolution to the boardroom problems. To summarise the plot so far, if somewhat crudely: there is a move from outside the boardroom to remove Brian Stockbridge, Craig Mather and Bryan Smart and replace them with Frank Blin and Murray. A club statement last night read: "This board has been working tirelessly to find an intelligent solution to the request for a general meeting and all of the directors are open to sensible and reasonable additions. For instance, the board are not against Frank Blin becoming a director but do have reservations about other proposals.'' When it comes to Murray, some on the board have more reservations than the Apaches. There was a feeling of relief that Green had gone, a belief among his opponents that a metaphorical stake had finally been placed through the heart of the significant shareholder, but there was also an anxiety about his almost diabolical powers of recovery. The most pressing difficulty for Rangers, however, centres on Murray. The opposition group could make a compromise by suggesting Blin, former executive chairman of PricewaterhouseCoopers Scotland, is joined on the board by A.N Other. Jim McColl, part of the outside group, would not consider such a role but the more intriguing aspect is the willingness or otherwise of Murray to relinquish his attempt to join a board that needs stability. The indications last night were surprising concrete given the fluidity of events at Ibrox. First, it seems there exists a strong aversion to bringing in Murray from among existing board members. Second, there was no sign of Murray issuing any sort of statement saying he would fall on his sword to facilitate peace, at least for the present. The objections are believed to be both personal and on matters of business. The accountant was part of the board before Craig Whyte bought the club and is seen by some as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. One City source said: "Murray had his chance to influence matters when he was on the board and then had his chance with the Blue Knights. There is no mood among some on the board to bring him back into the fold.'' The private concerns are shrouded in claim and counter claim. The Rangers story has been extraordinarily messy with dirt thrown in all directions. Information has leaked steadily. Murray, rightly or wrongly, has been suspected as one of those who have used media outlets to his advantage. If true, he would stand in a crowded dock as the briefings have come from almost every source, every faction. However, the fog of war has cleared just a little over Ibrox. Green has been sacked, disposed of by an increasingly frustrated and determined Mather. There is now an opportunity for compromise and even, heaven forfend, resolution of the boardroom struggle. This could come in a variety of forms. Two options are most likely. The first is Murray stands down and the McColl group is allowed to bring in Blin and an unspecified ally. The second is that Murray, backed by McColl, stands his ground and maintains his attempt to come on to the board. This eventuality would be fast-tracked by the approval of a vote at the extraordinary general meeting. The crux of the matter is this: if the McColl group is sure of the support of a group of shareholders, it will feel it has no need to sacrifice the candidature of Murray. McColl and his cohorts will flex their muscle and the Blue Room will undergo yet another change of cast. Mather, it must be presumed, would not wait to be pushed and Stockbridge and Smart would face a limited future. There are a couple of possible twists, of course. This is a Rangers story, after all. The first is Murray could step aside temporarily, peace could break out and he could then be brought on board at a later stage. The second is that the present board finds enough support to win any vote. There is also the possibility of hearing the less than dulcet tones of Green joining the increasingly raucous debate. He may be gone but no one will be surprised at another scene-stealing interruption from the former chief executive. However, the narrative is now about Murray. Will he walk away or will he pursue his ambition to be on the board? History suggests it be latter option. The arithmetic will decide whether the erstwhile Blue Knight finally lands his prize. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/analysis-is-blue-knight-paul-murray-fighting-a-losing-battle.1377061992

Excellent article submitted by der Berliner A view from afar â?? The Reconstruction Lie? A little more than a year ago, Rangers FC went into administration. In the process of the club being handed over into the hands of a new company, the SPL board went out of their way to hand responsibility about its member's â?? i.e. Rangers' â?? future into the hands of their supporters. Those people at the board simply declining to do their job, or even contemplating that Rangers might have been led into administration by a criminal â?? as has been confirmed over the course of last year (and you hardly find a journalist north of Hadrian's Wall to say so). So off it went to the impartial fans of all the other SPL teams and had e.g. Bayern Munich been in a similar position and faced a vote from the BL fans, they would have played Bundesliga 2 football for a year or so too. A farce from top to bottom. Not that this was unexpected by the SPL bosses, who obviously assumed that the challenge for silverware and European places would be greater, people would come back to watch their teams in the new one-horse race in droves. Those same fans who cried blood-and-vengeance at their clubs, should they not vote Rangers out of the SPL. Those same fans who apparently developed a greater liking to gardening, video-gaming, or curling during the course of the season. It did not take the SPL board long to resume its powers after that, urging (to say the least) the SFL to place Rangers not into the lowest tier (according to the SFL rules), but into the First Division. For anything else would imperil the SPL's TV deals, constructed neatly around 4 to 6 Old Firm games per season. The SFA jumped in and told the SFL that for the greater good of the game, that was the way to do it. The â?? naughty and unruly - SFL stuck to their own rules though â?? as well as the opinion of their chairmen and fans. Rangers were included in the set-up like any new team, in the lowest tier. The SPL quickly got back into stride after that stumble and coerced the SFL into accepting a TV deal that included the screaming of the SFL's Rangers, much to the benefit of the SPL clubs. That did not help the state of affairs of the SPL though. Facts and figures show that its income has dropped, attendances went down at an alarming rate, despite what the SPL's boss Doncaster tries to tell the audience. With the SPL facing various legal bills now, a TV deal only known to Doncaster and possibly his close ally Lawwell, and many SPL clubs hardly able to sustain themselves, does anyone actually think that this same body is actually able to keep up with the financial backing of the SFL, the back-up they proposed alongside their 12-12-18 reconstruction? A recent survey was clearly telling that the football supporters were opposed to the 12-12-18 plan the SPL tries to sell as the last-possible option (why?). SFL clubs were asking their supporters about this and while they all agreed that change was required, there was a clear understanding that 12-12-18 was not the format to move forward, nor was it required straight after this season. But this time, the SPL bosses â?? along with those at the SFA â?? seem to disregard the opinion of the clubs' supporters, not least those of the SFL. Selective democracy? Rather on the contrary, the chairmen of Dundee United and Aberdeen show great endeavour to discredit other chairmen like those of St. Mirren and Ross County, who appear to stand firm in their critique of the proposed changes. Those who were fore-runners of fan-power and the call for â??sporting integrityâ?? - which essentially ignored that fact that Rangers FC on the park were indeed the same Rangers FC as before, despite new owners (â??not guilty until provenâ? springs to mind) â?? now deny this very same right to their fellow chairmen and supporters? And in fact blame them for being self-interested and not looking for the greater good of the game? These people certainly don't do irony! Last season, the whole lot of them acted purely out of self-interest when voting Rangers out of the SPL, looking for greater gains and more money than ever before, not least the likes of the New Firm, Aberdeen and Dundee United. How could they have envisaged that they will end â?? again â?? up in mid-table of a weakened SPL, crowds dwindling, quality dropping? How could they have envisaged that the likes of Inverness Caledonian Thistle or Ross County put up a more sterner challenge to the league race than their own distinguished teams? So why the urgency in the reconstruction, a reconstruction lead and essentially forced through by the SPL, a reconstruction that is being tauted as â??now or neverâ??? Casting aside the rather convoluted split system that does not help Scottish football develop or being any more attractive than it is now â?? not least for those teams in the 18-league. There is only one real reason why the SPL teams need their way here, the reconstruction under their terms: the plight of the SPL. It faces up to law cases with regards to money owed to a pub-owner (1.7m), prize money owed to Rangers FC (2.3m, oldco or newco does not matter), and face the legal bills of their very own EBT-case chase from Harper McLeod. Apart from the TV deals that only Doncaster and probably Lawwell have seen, TV deals that should help them pay the SFL teams after the reconstruction? TV deals that are not yet signed and delivered? You wonder why no-one in the media has ever had the audacity to ask the SPL about their financing programme? Or shall I say moonbeams? And with those Doncaster and Co. run about and try to bully their fellow SPL chairmen and those of the SFL into agreeing to their deal? You wonder if they actually check their accounts every now and then? Let's make no mistake here. The SPL is walking on empty and if the reconstruction is not being pressed through this year, there might not be a SPL left in 6 months time. Which in turn leaves a dozen teams without a league and facing the prospect of asking their way back into the Scottish game via the SFL and â?¦ the Rangers route. The SFL teams should be very aware of this. They hold nigh all the aces after the SPL dug their own grave last summer. They may actually start to invite the likes of St. Mirren and Ross County into the SFL under their terms of reconstruction. There's nothing that should stop the SFL taking over the reigns of all four divisions in Scotland again this summer, keeping the current format, but under a hierarchical structure â?? again. And while the TV deals et al are being utilized by one body for all, learned people can start to create a model better suited for the Scottish game as such, in time for the season after next. The SPL and a cabal of chairmen have ruined the whole Scottish set-up, mainly out of self-interest. It is time that they are removed from the game, for the better of the game. In that respect, stand firm Ross County, stand firm SFL! Fan Survey