the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 we do have a transfer ban and he's refusing to stand up to a tribunal on dual contracts though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 we do have a transfer ban and he's refusing to stand up to a tribunal on dual contracts though. Made sure it was delayed to allow us to bring 9 players in though. Wages that could be going to investors, if you believe the paranoiacs that is. And I don't understand, he is standing up for us on that issue? You can't blame him for feeling it's a rigged process when we pretty much all agree. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 we could just sum it up by saying greens not the only one that talks shit sometimes. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,255 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 when league reconstruction comes around (and it will)a condition of our participation must be that the transfer embargo is dropped. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 we do have a transfer ban and he's refusing to stand up to a tribunal on dual contracts though. We all got outta jail along with the whole of Scottish football with that dark episode, (FIFA hovering) common sense prevailed the ban was suspended in order for Rangers to climb out of the relatively easy divs 3 & 2 - a compromise some might say. Rangers won that one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,050 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 We all got outta jail along with the whole of Scottish football with that dark episode, (FIFA hovering) common sense prevailed the ban was suspended in order for Rangers to climb out of the relatively easy divs 3 & 2 - a compromise some might say. Rangers won that one. How can you possibly claim Rangers "won that one" when Lord Glennie had declared such a sanction invalid? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 Aye..a diddy won't. Oops! that's another thread. i meant financially and staturely if thats even a word. haha the biggest and best clubs in general have adidas and nike. we have had the cheap and nasty option since going diadora. adidas will be a sign to me anyway that our owners mean business. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bears 0 Posted September 21, 2012 Author Share Posted September 21, 2012 i meant financially and staturely if thats even a word. haha the biggest and best clubs in general have adidas and nike. we have had the cheap and nasty option since going diadora. adidas will be a sign to me anyway that our owners mean business. Diadora didn't make our strip. Rangers made it themselves. Diadora were a sponsor 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 857 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 How can you possibly claim Rangers "won that one" when Lord Glennie had declared such a sanction invalid? Maybe "win" is too positive a word, but that situation could have turned out so much worse for us. Let's not forget that Glennie declared the sanction unvalid, not the verdict. The "power-that-be" could have chosen a more servere sanction from the list and there would have been nothing we could do to stop them. Also, as 54andcounting says, the difference between a straight ban and a suspended ban is immense. Like it or not, the anti-Rangers in positions of authority have the power (and, at that point, had the opportunity) to hurt us very badly. We negotiated our way through it well, I think. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,240 Posted September 21, 2012 Share Posted September 21, 2012 we do have a transfer ban and he's refusing to stand up to a tribunal on dual contracts though. Ahem, regarding the transfer embargo, methinks he clearly pointed at blackmail. No transfer embargo = no SFA licence, no Rangers FC playing football (in Scotland). As for the tribunal ... he's challenging, but on a different level. I for one would assume he chose this way on purpose, though we would obviously like it more direct. That said, GDS will challenge the tribunal thing directly, as could any oldco shareholder. You do wonder why none but GDS does ... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.