SPL wants Rangers media rights or else NO Rangers.

[UCF2008 0]

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.

[UCF2008 0]

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.

[foggy dewhurst 0]

if the other bodies dont agree were not in so its time to take the whole matter to the law courts even if it sees the rangers going into hibernation for a year i say we have the law and humann rights as well as common sense on our side i cant see politicians etc being happy to see people losing their jobs not just at ibrox but there will be a big knock on effect in scottish football its time to fightback or else ther will be nothing left to fight for .

 

thats foggys saturday rant .

[BrahimHemdani 1]

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.

 

In theory you are correct but in practice you need to bear in mind that whatever Regan discusses with Ally McCoist, Green et al, he still has to get past his Board, which has a representative from the SPL (or should have, Ralph Topping having stood down and Lawwell in line for his place) and there is also the Professional Game Board with three SPL representaives below the main Board. The matter would probably go to the PGB first for a recommendation to the main Board, hence the issue.

 

Morally and you would think legally the SPL have no entitlement whatsoever to our media rights but it seems to me that they want to exert to their pound of flesh. Having refused our application on the grounds of "sporting integrity", the result is that they have cost themsleves mega amounts of money, probably about £10M a season perhaps as much as £16M, around £500,000 - £1,000,000 per club and they are obviously looking at how they can recoup that loss.

 

Unfortunately for us, we are in the last chance saloon, and they know it; so the only way out might be court as others suggest.

Edited July 21, 2012 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

The SFL won't back down to the threats from the SPL and SFA.

 

The SFL and Longmuir in particular will not WANT to back down to the SFA/SPL (Longmuir has little time for Regan and even less for Doncaster) but all these things are a matter of negotiation right now and half a cake that you didn't have before might be worth a great deal to the lower division clubs who stand to lose their £50,000/year lifeline from the SPL because of the loss of the TV deal.

[Mountain Bear 0]

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.

 

You may be right that it's the title issue that is the sticking point and I agree that's a different case, but like the SFA with the ban on player registration, the SPL articles give them a great deal of flexibility. In effect, my reading of them is that they could make their agreement conditional on anything they want.

 

In terms of whether / why we need them to agree to anything, i'm no expert, but having skimmed the relevant sections of both bodies' articles of association, I'm sticking with my theory from my previous post. It's the individual affiliate associations which provide the SFA with a list of their members each year and no club is allowed to be a member of more than one. These shares are passed from club to club as part of the normal promotion / relegation process and not issued then cancelled.

 

Time will tell if there's a real issue, but some clarity from Neil Doncaster would be nice, given both the SFA and Rangers have both issued statements.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Mountain Bear
Clarification

[gisabeer 409]

its all down to how much we want to keep our history. should they get away with this i would suggest and recommend a lifetime boycott of the scottish cup by our fans.

 

They are punishing us for so called cheating by cheating themselves.

[GovanAllan 0]

I'm probably wrong, but apart from the Double Contract stitch up the SPL has no say on our future until we are back in the SPL. I doubt it's the money they are after and more the no legal action they want signed off, so the stitch up can continue without any blocks.

[der Berliner 3,251]

The BBC journo in this instance appears to have taken / used quotes, mainly from Malcolm Murray, out of context.

 

It is essentially the same usual half-truth and conjecture reporting which I already highlighted in this thread. I've already complained to the BBC, with no reply whatsoever. As the BBC stands "above" Ofcom, the next port of call would be the BBC Trust. I for one will actually write to both, Ofcom and the Trust (same mail), as the former desperately wants to finally get the BBC into line with any other broadcaster.

[Gers4Life 0]

Spl can go fuck themselves! They want their cake and they want to eat it aswell