Rangers bombshell

[Maple Leaf]

6 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Sorry but Rangers quite clearly have zero in the way of bullets up their sleeve. People clinging to the idea of the Huns serving up killer evidence are deluded 

 

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that you're right. 

[Big Jam]

Motherwell and Hamilton do not want an independent investigation into spfl. 

I wonder what skeletons might get dug up. 

Surely we all want an spfl and an sfa for that matter that have no agenda who are not influenced by one club and Peter Liewell. 

Who want the best for Scottish football. 

There is so much negativity surrounding our game we can't attract sponsors willing to pay good money. 

We need a better share of money available to make it a more competitive league. 

We need ourselves and a few others challenging for the title and cups. 

A team going for 9 in a row and quadruple treble is bad for the Scottish game. 

 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

8 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

If I was a betting man, I'd bet that you're right. 

My worry is that we’re being led by a club who have zero integrity, zero evidence of any worth and whose only motivation is stopping Celtic winning a title which the Huns had already completely bottled.

 

We should be having nothing to do with them.

 

 

[Maple Leaf]

8 minutes ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

My worry is that we’re being led by a club who have zero integrity, zero evidence of any worth and whose only motivation is stopping Celtic winning a title which the Huns had already completely bottled.

 

We should be having nothing to do with them.

 

 

 

I think that "clutching at straws" is the appropriate terminology here.

[gorgie rd eh11]

 

 

 If there's nothing to hide why not have an independent investigation?

 

 They can put all the questions to bed.

 

 If they don't...

 

 

[Sherbet]

1 hour ago, Big Jam said:

Motherwell and Hamilton do not want an independent investigation into spfl. 

I wonder what skeletons might get dug up. 

Surely we all want an spfl and an sfa for that matter that have no agenda who are not influenced by one club and Peter Liewell. 

Who want the best for Scottish football. 

There is so much negativity surrounding our game we can't attract sponsors willing to pay good money. 

We need a better share of money available to make it a more competitive league. 

We need ourselves and a few others challenging for the title and cups. 

A team going for 9 in a row and quadruple treble is bad for the Scottish game. 

 

Unless it was us!!

[IveSeenTheLight]

7 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Sorry but Rangers quite clearly have zero in the way of bullets up their sleeve. People clinging to the idea of the Huns serving up killer evidence are deluded 

yeah, more of a damp squib than a bombshell

 

 

[Malinga the Swinga]

7 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

Sorry but Rangers quite clearly have zero in the way of bullets up their sleeve. People clinging to the idea of the Huns serving up killer evidence are deluded 

You have absolutely no idea whether they have evidence or not. Where you say 'quite clearly' you mean in your opinion which is just a guess. Almost as if you don't want them to have evidence and are clinging to hope that they don't. Unless we have independent inquiry, we will never know.

[soonbe110]

1 hour ago, Big Jam said:

Motherwell and Hamilton do not want an independent investigation into spfl. 

I wonder what skeletons might get dug up. 

Surely we all want an spfl and an sfa for that matter that have no agenda who are not influenced by one club and Peter Liewell. 

Who want the best for Scottish football. 

There is so much negativity surrounding our game we can't attract sponsors willing to pay good money. 

We need a better share of money available to make it a more competitive league. 

We need ourselves and a few others challenging for the title and cups. 

A team going for 9 in a row and quadruple treble is bad for the Scottish game. 

 

Both of their chief execs are on the SPFL board so no surprise there. 

[IveSeenTheLight]

8 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

. Unless we have independent inquiry, we will never know.

By stating they would not release the supposed evidence until the three guys were removed from the SPFL board, they’ve effectively revealed their hand is all bluff.

If they had any hand at all, they’d play the hand to be called.

[TyphoonJambo]

6 minutes ago, soonbe110 said:

Both of their chief execs are on the SPFL board so no surprise there. 

Therein lies our biggest problem. Scottish football is doomed unless we deal with this obvious issue. 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

27 minutes ago, Malinga the Swinga said:

You have absolutely no idea whether they have evidence or not. Where you say 'quite clearly' you mean in your opinion which is just a guess. Almost as if you don't want them to have evidence and are clinging to hope that they don't. Unless we have independent inquiry, we will never know.

use your brain pal

[Malinga the Swinga]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

use your brain pal

Using my brain, I am not your pal and never will be.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Just now, Malinga the Swinga said:

Using my brain, I am not your pal and never will be.

Good. Otherwise I’d be spending my time explaining to you how to hold a knife and fork

[Big Jam]

Why would Rangers provide or leak out the evidence before an independent  investigation. 

It gives the guilty parties time to cover up what has went on or protect themselves. 

If they do have info from a whistle blower this could be very interesting 

Its time we had an spfl and SFA that are there to help and do their best for all 42 clubs not just one. 

Just for balance Rangers have not once asked for null and void. 

They put forward a resolution along with ourselves to release funds with OUT ending any leagues. 

All the no voters including us thought it was far to rushed 48 ours to vote on something this important once the lower leagues got loans for the 1.9 million 

Then everyone could discuss the best way forward for all Scottish football 

[Cruyff]

As much as I can't stand Michael Stewart, he is right. Rangers need to either produce their evidence publicly or hand it over to an inquiry. Put up or shut up. 

 

If they don't they will a) have severely embarrassed & damaged themselves and b) will bring Scottish Football into further disrupt by creating more infighting, more mistrust and more uncertainty. 

 

Release some of it publicly and clubs will back them and the SPFL will be put into a position there's no getting out of. If they want rid off Doncaster, do it. 

[JimmyCant]

10 minutes ago, Big Jam said:

Why would Rangers provide or leak out the evidence before an independent  investigation. 

It gives the guilty parties time to cover up what has went on or protect themselves. 

 

 

Because they will need to outline to the 41 clubs what they have in their dossier or there is no chance they will get 32 votes required for an enquiry.

 

I imagine the guilty parties, if there are any, are well aware of what Rangers MIGHT have and will have mitigated that as far as they can already.

 

There is no need for Rangers to keep this Dossier a secret any longer, even if it’s truly explosive, lets have it out there.

 

[Cruyff]

1 hour ago, JimmyCant said:

Because they will need to outline to the 41 clubs what they have in their dossier or there is no chance they will get 32 votes required for an enquiry.

 

I imagine the guilty parties, if there are any, are well aware of what Rangers MIGHT have and will have mitigated that as far as they can already.

 

There is no need for Rangers to keep this Dossier a secret any longer, even if it’s truly explosive, lets have it out there.

 

Spot on. 

[airthjambo]

6 hours ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

yeah, more of a damp squib than a bombshell

 

 

Aye cos your lot sided with Celtic when we could've got rid of the 11-1 vote, you actually finished bottom when all games were completed, remembet

[Kiwidoug]

Big Jam is right.  What we need at the end of all this is a competitive top league.  Not easy to achieve but it would actually be in the interest of the OF as well.

 

Very difficult to get rid of that domination however.

 

Points deduction for anti social behaviour would be one way.

[Tott]

46 minutes ago, Kiwidoug said:

Big Jam is right.  What we need at the end of all this is a competitive top league.  Not easy to achieve but it would actually be in the interest of the OF as well.

 

Very difficult to get rid of that domination however.

 

Points deduction for anti social behaviour would be one way.

 

 

If you cant win a league on merit,dont bother at all..

Points deductions ? football is done if that happens.

[Kiwidoug]

26 minutes ago, Tott said:

 

 

If you cant win a league on merit,dont bother at all..

Points deductions ? football is done if that happens.

If you're happy, that's fine.  I'm not.  

 

We're looking at the dynamic duo sharing the league for the next 50 years.  I'm lucky.  I won't be around for at least half of them.

 

[Kiwidoug]

Another way of equalising competitions is salary caps.  Pretty sure they do that in Aussie to avoid monopolies.

 

Anything is worth trying.

[graygo]

2 hours ago, airthjambo said:

Aye cos your lot sided with Celtic when we could've got rid of the 11-1 vote, you actually finished bottom when all games were completed, remembet

 

So did we.

[maroonedinoz]

2 hours ago, Kiwidoug said:

Another way of equalising competitions is salary caps.  Pretty sure they do that in Aussie to avoid monopolies.

 

Anything is worth trying.

They do, but in the A league it causes more problems than it solves .

Not least when the Aussie champions line up in the Asian Cup where they are nearly always knocked out early by Asian teams whose wage bill dwarfs that of the Australians

There is also the argument that a salary cap may indeed go some of the way to équalising' the competition, but that means also that it reduces the standard to one of mediocrity.

Several commentators are calling for the scrapping of the salary cap but I honestly don't see it being an issue as I think with the loss of the Fox TV contract, the league is stuffed, and part time football definitely a possibility.

And don't tell me that 'big' clubs can't find their way round it...Sydney, Victor,y and Melbourne City seem to have no trouble attracting expensive players, certainly more than Central Coast or Newcastle for example. 

[IveSeenTheLight]

14 hours ago, airthjambo said:

Aye cos your lot sided with Celtic when we could've got rid of the 11-1 vote, you actually finished bottom when all games were completed, remembet

Remind me, what was in the detail of that vote and what was Hearts position on it?

[airthjambo]

17 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Remind me, what was in the detail of that vote and what was Hearts position on it?

To remove 11-1 requirement for certain things to be approved iirc, 10- 2, Celtic & Aberdeen, again iirc

[rory78]

Beginning to think Rangers do have something thats another statement out now and willing to show the other clubs what they have - they're going to look very stupid if it was nothing of note 

[Benny Factor]

On 25/04/2020 at 14:26, merrymac said:

Packy Bonner -

The eloquence of a brick

There'll be many a brick that would take offence to that comment! 

[gashauskis9]

4 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Beginning to think Rangers do have something thats another statement out now and willing to show the other clubs what they have - they're going to look very stupid if it was nothing of note 

Better not just be a picture of a cock and balls.  There’s a lot riding on it...

[Cruyff]

4 minutes ago, rory78 said:

Beginning to think Rangers do have something thats another statement out now and willing to show the other clubs what they have - they're going to look very stupid if it was nothing of note 

You'd think so. Since they've punted King and Traynor, I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're no long making the Trumpesq statements of before and Parks is a good guy. 

[Deevers]

39 minutes ago, Cruyff said:

You'd think so. Since they've punted King and Traynor, I've been giving them the benefit of the doubt. They're no long making the Trumpesq statements of before and Parks is a good guy. 

I honestly don’t think Douglas Park would be doing this unless they had something pretty damning.

[Worthing Jambo]

Celtic are determined to be the first club to put an asterisk on their shirt.

[OldGorgie]

1 hour ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Remind me, what was in the detail of that vote and what was Hearts position on it?

The most Disgusting aspect of this whole fiasco has been the fact clubs like Aberdeen and the Hobos say one thing and then do the other to save their skins. You can dress it anyway you want but there is no sporting integrity involved. 

[Worthing Jambo]

8 minutes ago, Barack said:

I can think of a word that would mean 5 asterisks on their shirt.

😂 and very apt.

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Remind me, what was in the detail of that vote and what was Hearts position on it?

 

"SPL clubs have delayed moves to introduce a new top-flight voting structure after Aberdeen joined forces with Celtic in blocking the path to change. A motion was put forward at yesterday’s SPL board meeting to ditch the current 11-1 majority needed for major decisions with some clubs keen to see a new 9-3 voting system introduced on all issues."

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/moves-to-change-spl-voting-structure-1393897

 

Hearts voted for the motion.

 

Why do you ask?

 

 

[merrymac]

3 hours ago, EarnockJambo said:

There'll be many a brick that would take offence to that comment! 

Noted ! - apologies to all bricks out there,for insulting them by likening them to PB.

[Boof]

On 25/04/2020 at 14:26, merrymac said:

Packy Bonner -

The eloquence of a bprick

 

FTFY

[merrymac]

1 minute ago, Boof said:

 

FTFY

Nah sorry cant agree a prick is something useful

[Boof]

3 minutes ago, merrymac said:

Nah sorry cant agree a prick is something useful

 

True. Though he is full o' pish.

[merrymac]

6 minutes ago, Boof said:

 

True. Though he is full o' pish.

Agreed, maybe not such a bad  description👍

[jaywalker]

On 24 April 2020 at 19:27, Smith's right boot said:

Too many "statements" by clubs imo, ruins the excitement of an actual statement. 

 

There should be a statement that states what is a statement and what states what is just an actual communication. 

 

This way no one gets into a state about every statement that is just a communication and when there is an actual statement that states something it's not lost amongst the statements that state nothing. If we can state that, we all get in less of a state about every statement and can actually get into a state when an actual statement that states somthing is stated. 

 

 

Were you in Yes Minister?

[jaywalker]

On 24 April 2020 at 21:27, East Lothian Jambo said:

How they pay the bills between now and potentially January remains the biggest poser of all 

 

They must ordinarily almost be living hand to mouth. They must be up shit street just now. King can't/won't shore it up and Park is maxed out 

 

Massive problems at Rangers

Snag is, we've been banging that drum for 8 years now, they have been weeks away from going bust again for all of that time but they are still chucking money around as if it is going out of fashion, are they going to go tits up or is it possible they are more solvent than we think.

[IveSeenTheLight]

3 hours ago, airthjambo said:

To remove 11-1 requirement for certain things to be approved iirc, 10- 2, Celtic & Aberdeen, again iirc

 

That was part of it, but not the whole premise of the vote

 

2 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

"SPL clubs have delayed moves to introduce a new top-flight voting structure after Aberdeen joined forces with Celtic in blocking the path to change. A motion was put forward at yesterday’s SPL board meeting to ditch the current 11-1 majority needed for major decisions with some clubs keen to see a new 9-3 voting system introduced on all issues."

 

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/moves-to-change-spl-voting-structure-1393897

 

Hearts voted for the motion.

 

Why do you ask?

 

 

 

Did Hearts vote for the motion?

I read that Hearts had yet to vote when they were advised that Aberdeen had already voted against and the motion was rejected at that time.

As part of the motion, I also read that was an inclusion for home gates to be split.

Would Hearts be happy to split home gates receipts with the opposing team?

[redjambo]

22 minutes ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

Did Hearts vote for the motion?

I read that Hearts had yet to vote when they were advised that Aberdeen had already voted against and the motion was rejected at that time.

As part of the motion, I also read that was an inclusion for home gates to be split.

Would Hearts be happy to split home gates receipts with the opposing team?

 

Would you like to provide any evidence at all for those claims?

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Would you like to provide any evidence at all for those claims?

I think he's right, I seem to remember we didn't vote as 2 were already enough to kill it, but we later acknowledged we'd planned to vote with Aberdeen and celtic. I mind being a but gutted about it.

[Bring Back Paulo Sergio]

1 hour ago, IveSeenTheLight said:

 

That was part of it, but not the whole premise of the vote

 

 

Did Hearts vote for the motion?

I read that Hearts had yet to vote when they were advised that Aberdeen had already voted against and the motion was rejected at that time.

As part of the motion, I also read that was an inclusion for home gates to be split.

Would Hearts be happy to split home gates receipts with the opposing team?

That's how I remember it. You've got to wonder why that was part of the motion. My only guess would be to ensure that it would never pass. 

[Unknown user]

5 hours ago, Bring Back Paulo Sergio said:

That's how I remember it. You've got to wonder why that was part of the motion. My only guess would be to ensure that it would never pass. 

I seem to remember it was more a fear of gate sharing becoming a potential possibility under a 9-3 vote rather than it actually being formally proposed yet, but it was all a while ago now, it's a bit hazy 

[IveSeenTheLight]

6 hours ago, Smithee said:

I seem to remember it was more a fear of gate sharing becoming a potential possibility under a 9-3 vote rather than it actually being formally proposed yet, but it was all a while ago now, it's a bit hazy 

 

That is true, but the fear was that things like the home gate receipts being split could be sanctioned with a 9-3 vote.

Remember, DeidCo was no longer in the top league, so even if Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts voted against splitting the home gate, there could be enough to push it through.

 

If the motion was put forward the season that Hearts, SevCo and Hibs were in the championship, would there have been enough in the premier league to block a change under a 9-3 vote? Which teams would have voted against it?

 

I think we all would have preferred to have a fairer voting structure, and for many applications it is. 11-1 was held to protect areas such as league reconstruction, home gate receipts, tv deals etc

 

The fact is, like now, back then, motions were structured in a way to influence the vote for a preferred outcome.