the gunslinger 3,366 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 green had to accept the sfa's shite. he needed to raise cash and with no licence we would have been in admin again inside a month. he was probably right to do so. let's be honest it only stopped us signing players in Jan and made it a little more difficult next summer. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,882 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 i disagree. what risks? a scottish cup ban? that would have been better for us given our managers embarassing cup record. Biggest one is income. No games = no income. Also means we are potentially having to refund ST monies. If we don't know how long it will take to resolve the issues, and our strategy relies on maintaining an SPL club infrastructure, if not a full SPL standard squad, it's not simply a case of saying; we are in the right here and we are being blackmailed. Also, cup games = revenue. Just because we didn't win the cups or do that great, doesn't mean we didn't benefit from participating. All told, the club was faced with a conundrum: stick to our guns and face having no football for a year, ad whatever that did to us. Or, accept the conditions, get back playing football and work through our issues in a robust manner We have a football team to watch because they chose the latter. Who knows what could have happened of teu hadn't. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 There was no obligation for the SFA membership to be transferred, the SFA had the real power there. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,882 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 There was no obligation for the SFA membership to be transferred, the SFA had the real power there. Agreed. Gaining membership and continuing to chip away at other issues has allowed us to regain some standing. We're still a long way from being treated with the respect we deserve though. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Biggest one is income. No games = no income. Also means we are potentially having to refund ST monies. If we don't know how long it will take to resolve the issues, and our strategy relies on maintaining an SPL club infrastructure, if not a full SPL standard squad, it's not simply a case of saying; we are in the right here and we are being blackmailed. Also, cup games = revenue. Just because we didn't win the cups or do that great, doesn't mean we didn't benefit from participating. All told, the club was faced with a conundrum: stick to our guns and face having no football for a year, ad whatever that did to us. Or, accept the conditions, get back playing football and work through our issues in a robust manner We have a football team to watch because they chose the latter. Who knows what could have happened of teu hadn't. but there would have been income and games. we would simply have been given a different punishment. god knows why we needed to keep any spl infrastructure, we knew it waa going to take 3 years to back there so essentially 3 years of wasted outgoings, unless green thought his idle threats would lead to some sort of fast track back into the top league after a season! god knows why even bothered keeping an spl standard squad either, it is utter madness. cup games may equal revenue but if that was our punishment then that would have been better than accepting an 'illegal' punishment which now shows the sfa they can basically do anything they want to us and we will take it no matter what we say in pr releases. it wouldnt have been a year imo. robust? in what way? we are doing alot of talking but we are still owed money from the sfa and spl, we are still under an embargo, there is no fast track and the boycotting fiasco at tannadice in the scottish cup we should have not even partaken in embarassed our club even further we can guess what would have happened, i have said what i think and i believe that was worth any risk associated with it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 There was no obligation for the SFA membership to be transferred, the SFA had the real power there. lol if you believe the sfa were not going to give us our licence then you are deluded. not just you, anyone. we panicked, flapped and blinked first. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 lol if you believe the sfa were not going to give us our licence then you are deluded. not just you, anyone. we panicked, flapped and blinked first. Just like the banks would force the SPL clubs to vote yes? Like we'd never be allowed to go lower than the 1st division etc etc? You might be right but so much stuff we'd never have expected to happen has happened over the last year or so, therefore I would not have liked to see the club take that gamble. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuznetsov 0 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Just like the banks would force the SPL clubs to vote yes? Like we'd never be allowed to go lower than the 1st division etc etc? You might be right but so much stuff we'd never have expected to happen has happened over the last year or so, therefore I would not have liked to see the club take that gamble. why would the banks do that? why would we never be allowed to go lower than the 1st division? what relevance are they? none. i would have, the odds(£££) were in our favour i believe. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I doubt Murray is the only one within Ibrox exasperated with Green. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 1,882 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 but there would have been income and games. we would simply have been given a different punishment. god knows why we needed to keep any spl infrastructure, we knew it waa going to take 3 years to back there so essentially 3 years of wasted outgoings, unless green thought his idle threats would lead to some sort of fast track back into the top league after a season! god knows why even bothered keeping an spl standard squad either, it is utter madness. cup games may equal revenue but if that was our punishment then that would have been better than accepting an 'illegal' punishment which now shows the sfa they can basically do anything they want to us and we will take it no matter what we say in pr releases. it wouldnt have been a year imo. robust? in what way? we are doing alot of talking but we are still owed money from the sfa and spl, we are still under an embargo, there is no fast track and the boycotting fiasco at tannadice in the scottish cup we should have not even partaken in embarassed our club even further we can guess what would have happened, i have said what i think and i believe that was worth any risk associated with it. That's all ifs, buts and unsubstantiated opinion. No SFA license means no games. Which means no income and no club. There isn't any more to it. 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.