We thought it would be good to show the audience we have had over the last few months, and to say thanks to all those who have helped to make this a thriving community in the short time we have been on the go.
A Happy New year to all from everyone at TSFM.
______________________________________________________________
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
About 55,000 tourists visit Liechtenstein every year. This blog was viewed about 3,500,000 times in 2012. If it were Liechtenstein, it would take about 64 years for that many people to see it. Your blog had more visits than a small country in Europe!
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:11
This information, hopefully, has been picked up by the media.
Captain Haddock says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:03
Aye Aye Capt ! – I wonder if they would have got away with this had David Will still been around ?
I made a post a few days back, voicing my concern that the blog needed to find a mechanism for reaching concensus, so that we could make actual decisions on what was the best thing to do and then follow up on that decision. The post received a good number of TUs, which I took to mean that many other posters saw the need for this, given that 2013 is in my opinion likely to be a year when we need to voice a consolidated opinion/take action, rather than just make comments.
Although happy that people seem to share my view, I am disappointed that there was no discussion initiated about what that mechanism might be. As you know, I was hoping that someone more techie than me – perhaps the mods who know how WordPress can work – might start to think about a way forward.
The apparent quick progress of the reconstruction talks is for me the perfect example of what I’m concerned about. There are some great posters on this blog, but in response to the restructuring announcement, I have seen some posters who simply won’t have it because it could help RFC*, some who won’t have it because it keeps the ‘play 4 times a season’ issue, some who won’t have it because it makes the split even more stupid, some who won’t have any change until the stooges have gone, some who won’t have it because it’s not logical to say 18 teams is too big, but then have an 18-team third tier, some who only want 2 larger leagues, some who only want it if the pyramid is extended, some who won’t have anything implemented at the end of this season, some who want the status quo as this season has been good, some who are okay with it as at least it’s a step forward etc etc etc.
All of the foregoing are worthwhile arguments/debates, but we are all over the place! Could anyone hand on heart say what TSFM thinks about the reconstruction proposals? I can’t, other than that I think the majoritory are against the proposal. IMO, we can’t just say No, we need to agree and put forward what our alternative is. How do we reach concensus on what our stance is?
I think that is what I want TSFM to be – a forum where concensus is reached and then some action is taken. I hope what I’m about to say isn’t Group-think, but right now, what makes TSFM different is that some mature-thinking, sensible posters from a number of football persuasions can state their opinion without fear or favour and rational analysis/discussion takes place. We can all disagree on a topic, but rarely is anyone shouted down, bullied, laughed at, called names etc.
What will make it different in future- and better IMO – is if we can become a more unified voice stating agreed ways forward or agreed good reasons NOT to do what some body is proposing. This might mean that any one poster’s view succumbs to the majority. How comfortable would we be with that?
I love this blog. It’s fascinating, educational and funny, but I’m not sure it can continue to be just a number of learned individuals simply stating their opinion if we are to be effective in what we are here to do – monitor the fairness of Scottish football.
Please don’t just TU/TD, say what you think of my point of view. Thanks.
….and that’s before we start to think how we make our (hopefully agreed) voice heard!
Copied this from CQN for insight on TUPE.
Great article regarding TUPE from Twohundredpercent
Charles Green: TUPE Or Not TUPE – Is That Still The Question?Posted by Mark on Dec 24, 2012
An unforeseen side-effect of the Rangers International Football Club share issue was the regurgitation of the “TUPE” issue surrounding the transfer of old Rangers players to Charles Green’s new Rangers on June 14th. The share prospectus, issued on December 5th, referenced an Employment Tribunal claim against Rangers Football Club Limited “on behalf of 67 un-named players.” Caught unawares by this ‘revelation,’ sections of the Scottish press splashed with what they thought was a new legal nightmare for Rangers. However, it wasn’t ‘new’ at all. Green’s half-successful share issue campaign – institutional investors over-subscribing in search of early profits, supporters excusably under-subscribing in tough economic times – has commanded most of his oratorical energies recently. Previously, he devoted much of them to Rangers players who “objected” to their transfer of employers from old to new Rangers, after Rangers’ CVA failed. Green appeared not to expect any such objections and made every effort to appear affronted by them. Without claiming deep expertise, I have knowledge and personal experience of TUPE, or ‘Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment)’ legislation, having been ‘TUPE-transferred’ myself and been a union representative of other transferees. The legislation prevents employment conditions being altered detrimentally as a direct result of a transfer. It also allows employees to ‘object’ to it, the issue to which TUPE has applied most contentiously to Rangers.
Rangers players were represented by agents and Scotland’s Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA Scotland). Employee representatives were entitled to formal consultation on the transfer. Players were entitled to notification of the transfer itself (formally – not just by reading about it in the Daily Record), the reasons for it and the “legal, economic and social implications” of it. And contracts would automatically transfer unless “prior to the transfer or upon being notified of it, the employee objects.” In that event, players could leave Rangers without a breach of contract. For all the understanding of this legislation displayed by some protagonists, the ‘transfer of undertaking’ might as well have been about funeral arrangements. But whether Green really misunderstood it seems unlikely.
There was certainly no public acknowledgement of formal notification to the players prior to the transfer. And each senior Rangers official appeared to have a different version of the process. Newly-installed chairman Malcolm Murray said on June 15th that “it was still a bit of a grey area” and that while “most (players) are on holiday” Rangers would “get Ally (McCoist) to talk to them…as soon as they are back.” McCoist, though, was one of the transferees. “Formal” notification wasn’t his role at all. Green, meanwhile, appeared to make things up as he went along, telling reporters on June 27th that “it is clear in the regulations, if someone has an objection they have to notify within 24 hours. This is nearly two weeks.” He didn’t specify which 24 hours and he didn’t give anyone time to ask “where in the regulations does it say that?” – not least because the answer was… er… nowhere.
Seven days earlier Green admitted that he wouldn’t be “sitting down with (the players) and explaining where we are” until “next week.” By then, a number of them had formally objected to the transfer. And Green immediately accused them of “being ready to breach their contracts” merely to “secure handsome signing-on fees (from) other clubs while Rangers get nothing.” PFA Scotland had already clarified that they had received no formal notification or consultation. On June 13th, their CEO Fraser Wishart said he was “delighted…that Mr Green and (Rangers’ administrators) Duff and Phelps agree with (us) that TUPE applies to the players’ contracts…in a transfer to a newco.” But, like he knew what was coming, he added: “TUPE affords everybody the statutory right to object to the transfer – employers cannot select which parts of TUPE they wish to apply.”
PFA Scotland were not consulted until June 25th, by which time six players had objected. And players were certainly not informed of the transfer’s “legal, economic and social implications,” as no-one was sure what they were. “There is too much uncertainty over what division (Rangers) will be playing in,” said ‘objector’ Steven Naismith, correctly. And it wasn’t even certain that Rangers would even BE playing. Green, though, insisted that contracts automatically transferred under TUPE, regardless of other issues. He took the matter to the SFA for arbitration, to get compensation for breach of contract. And by mid-July, PFA Scotland had raised the issue of a “protective award claim” over Rangers’ failure to inform and consult.
This pretty much remains the situation. And the situation remains ill-understood. After what it called the “reaction to the matter becoming public,” a PFA Scotland statement on December 11th explained the “what,” “why” and “on whose behalf” of their claim. Within hours Green responded. And three days later, McCoist added his top pence worth. Wishart sought to “clearly set out” PFA Scotland’s position “to prevent any further misunderstanding” after the Record’s rather outlandish claims about the action.
According to the Record’s Keith Jackson (so it must be true…), the union were taking the action on behalf of players who had no interest in or knowledge of it, had not given permission for it and were embarrassed by it. Oh…and the union were suing Rangers for 90 days’ pay for each player. Wishart explained that this, and the share prospectus reference to the matter, was cods. Their claim was “raised in the name of PFA Scotland only” and, as Wishart noted with increasing frustration, “is one legal claim and has not been lodged in the name of any player, let alone some 67 individual players, as has been reported. “It is quite simply inaccurate therefore to suggest that PFA Scotland has acted here without instruction. PFA Scotland does not require instructions to raise a court action in its own name.”
The statement explained that PFA Scotland had a legal entitlement to be consulted “in advance of a TUPE transfer.” Yet “unfortunately,” Wishart sighed, administrators Duff and Phelps failed to enter into any consultation whatsoever with the players and PFA Scotland,” even after an April reminder “of the players’ rights under the TUPE legislation.” Rangers captain Lee McCulloch had told the Record that PFA Scotland were given “no mandate to sue” the club. Wishart responded: “It may be that no players will pursue this… in fact, many of the players have already said they will waive this entitlement.” He then “stressed” that the motive behind the claim had “never been financial” but rather “an important point of principle, since our rights as representatives of the players were wholly disregarded by those involved in the TUPE transfer.”
Green’s statement repeated his summertime arguments. The players objecting to the transfer had “unilaterally terminated their contracts in an unlawful manner.” Their objections were “incompetent.” And if Rangers could not get compensation – “from the players and their clubs” – through an SFA Arbitration Tribunal, “there are other routes available.” He also offered his “explanation” of PFA Scotland’s claim, repeating factual errors which Wishart had just corrected, in a statement Green must have seen, as he quoted from it. The claim was “supposedly on behalf of 67 un-named players,” although “fans will note how club captain McCulloch and a number of other players have quickly disassociated themselves from this action…and have already waived any right to participate in this claim.” As Wishart had just explained.
Green added that “a number of players whose contracts were due to terminate at the end of last season and who were never in line to transfer under TUPE have been included in the numbers, “…numbers which had come from Rangers’ share prospectus, not PFA Scotland. He then told a tale of “the father of one player calling, quite furious, to say that his son has been attached to an action he knew nothing about,” adding that “PFA Scotland has confirmed as much in its statement earlier today,” which was simply untrue. And he declared that “in reality, we are talking about six players who have form of dispute, rather than 67,” while “the fact that so many of the supposed 67 players are still at Ibrox and have indicated they have no part in this action begs the question why it is being raised at all” – the question which Wishart had already answered.
Green had his own answer: “The purpose of the failure to consult claim is therefore not to safeguard the rights of the 67 players but to attempt to persuade the club to abandon its legitimate pursuit of compensation from players who, in the club’s view, walked out on their contracts of employment.” Well, yes. Yet this legitimate negotiating tactic was presented as a bad thing, while Jackson’s news article in the Record called it “clumsy.” Green is, of course, not one for persuasion on any matter. And in this case, there’s no reason why he should be. So it’s off to arbitration for Green and PFA Scotland. And NOT 67 players, named or un-named.
McCoist’s take was instructive. Despite three days in which he could have been set straight, he was still allowed to repeat the prospectus errors, despite admitting that “maybe there’s more to it than I’m seeing,” and that “I don’t know all the facts.” He showed a touching faith that “somebody will correct me if I’m wrong.” But when he was… they didn’t, as when he said “it was my job to inform the players” of their rights under TUPE.Particularly instructive, though, was his response to objectors such as Naismith, who this week said “I wouldn’t go back to Ibrox for a game” because “a lot of the fans aren’t happy with what went on.” An unsympathetic McCoist simply said that such players had to “live with” their decisions. As Naismith correctly noted, he and other objectors had last season taken a 75% pay cut “to try to stop the club getting liquidated.” Yet McCoist said the club had “every right” to pursue them for “financial benefits.” But he added, intriguingly, that “as manager I have to – and will – back that stance,” a hint perhaps of some discomfort with Green’s bullish stance.
Green’s bullishness has dominated the “TUPE” issue. He has all-too-often resembled a Thatcherite bully-boy, riding roughshod over workers’ rights, backed by a tabloid press all-too-willingly engaging in lazy, ill-informed union-bashing, like Jackson in the Record. Green had, for instance, freedom to portray PFA Scotland – and players such as Naismith – as unprincipled money-grabbers…an irony which could surely only be lost on Americans. And while a Rangers share prospectus contained the misleading information about PFA Scotland’s action, Green surely approved the relevant paragraph, even if he didn’t pen it. So… yet more Charles Green bullishness, bullying and borderline deception. Doubtless some readers have grown weary of reading about it. But how long must it take before they grow weary of HIM. That really IS the question.
Love the statement given by The Treasury re the Rangers HMRC Petition especially the line:
‘HMRC is committed to tackling avoidance and it is right that HMRC challenges the type of avoidance seen in this case to prevent the loss of substantial amounts of tax and NICs’.
Captain Haddock
…….and I’m sorry those clubs they played did not protest or take the SFA to court.
========
It may not have been possible to protest then because the governing body assured that all was legitimate.
Only now that Brechin know that all was not legitimate have they the evidence upon which to protest.
Unfortunately, it may not have been advisable to protest then or now ……. what did the Falkirk chairman say on Sportsound last night?
Green knows all about the scamming that went on and his knowledge may be what has prevented SFA/SPL/SFL from reining him in.
In fact, this little ‘anomaly’ has been let slip just when Green believes that reconstruction is not going the way he was led to believe it would.
This may be a little reminder to all the guilty parties that he has the goods on them.
Eamon Holmes on Sky news earlier said that Rangers fans are the worst for abusive tweets on twitter.30 secs later he said here we go again.
Another world record?
If the end of the SPL as a body is upon us is this the end of the road for Mr Doncaster?
Auldheid, A wonderful and articulate explanation of TUPE and employment law. A great read and thanks for the education.
that’s some “small” anomaly to mention.
if you were a footballer, wee things like that might be kind of important to you.
did the agents of the ones who tupeed know this ?
where were their contracts registered for that time ?
in the greatest living administrator’s bottom drawer ?
and the handheld Anomaly Detector only costs 12 quid too………..
Auldheid,
Thankyou for the finely written and informative post.
I don’t know how I’ve managed to missed this.
I’ve just watched Chuck’s Xmas message to the bears, and my flabber is well beyond gasted.
I’m sure it must have been posted before, but for anyone else that missed this comedy classic, here’s the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rplaYVgBk0E
Nawlite ref your request for input:
One solution is that SFM has one of these simple multiple choice button poll inputs which it offers posters .(.may need to be only recognised posters ..as it could be potentially badly abused by rogue fans coming on to swing votes ) from time to time….eg posters could ask for a poll for big topics
After initial posts /discussions and at a key point in time identified in advance SFM says eg ”24 hours more for influencing posts then we take a vote ”.
.Posts assume will coalesce around a few options on subjects like LNS punishment scenarios or on various Reconstruction options ….Results published after pre-agreed voting period ..one person one vote obviously! ..
One concern in trying to get a consensus from a forum like this is that the overall nos are relatively small and when published could potentially lack credibility outside this post by being dismissed as the views of a bunch of keyboard jihadists…but ii think we could overcome that.
May need all to contribute something to buy this functionality for the site!
The most abused and used and misinterpreted words in the English language are could & may and any sentence which contains these words are often accepted as fact. The press write “Rangers Could join the Premiership” or ” Craig White may be a billionaire” the fact of the matter is Rangers could join the Highland League or Craig White may be skint”. So I turns on the telly to Sky Sports news and there it is I find myself laughing at the reports that “Rangers may try to join this league or that leagueand they may even join the MLS, ah FFS. They could buy this team or they could join a pan european league. The fact of it all is that this is all fantasy and as long as you add these words “could and may” you can make up any story you want. Rangers could try and join the Spanish league, they could try and join the German league and so it goes on. For God’s sake Sky gee us a break and stick to reality. Personally I think Charles Green could be an alien and Ally McCoist may join Celtic as a striker but then again he may not 🙂
I recall my wife used to buy the Express at the time poor Maddie McCann dissapeared and every day there was a new headline ” she could be in Morrocco, she may have been stolen by Gypsies” it used to do my nut in and I had to tell the wife to stop buying that paper because it was all shite and not at all helpful.
ekt1m says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 16:07
and Dryhope
I was not the author I just brought it over as I thought it provided clarity. It was a really good piece (I had experience of TUPE myself so could recognise the accuracy)
bestdressedchicken says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 16:41
first time ive seen
comedy genius
angus1983 says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:19
Asalient fact but who in the press would be willing to highlight it , possibly Mr Coz. Love to hear that debate on SSB tonight
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:11
30 0 Rate This
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:56
This is from The Rangers offical site regarding compensation payments for players who left
“We have this slight anomaly where for a period newco were not members of the SFA from June 14 until being granted membership on August 3.”
My post had nothing to do with the actual compensation case .
My point is that here is The Rangers , on their own official website , admitting to not being members of the SFA when they played , and beat Brechin City . As Campsiejoe pointed out this is a massive anomaly which should not go unpunished .A ban from next years Ramsdens Cup would seem appropriate plus some compensation for Brechin City .
……………….
I wonder if the players Insurance and even the Stadium Insurance was valid for that game.
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 14:14
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:56
This is from The Rangers offical site regarding compensation payments for players who left
“We have this slight anomaly where for a period newco were not members of the SFA from June 14 until being granted membership on August 3.”
==========================================================================
The bigger anomaly, which isn’t mentioned, is that TRFCL couldn’t take arbitration proceedings because it wasn’t an SFA member so the SFA allowed RFC 2012 Plc (IA) to ‘front’ the arbitration proceedings with presumably agreement from D&P and RFC 2012 Plc (IA) stating that any compensation paid should go to TRFCL again presumably with agreement from D&P.
I find it hard to get my head round this can of worms and so must the Rangers creditors as well as the Players’ Union who have objected to the arbitration proceedings.
At the hearing on Monday the chairman heard from Rangers – I don’t know if it was Rangers International, TRFCL or RFC 2012 (IA) now (IL) – and the Union.
The chair has now told them to have a think and if agreement can’t be reached he will make a judgement.
The Rangers press release has stated this perfectly normal procedure as almost a done-deal victory and it will be interesting to see if the MSM continue to report parrot fashion or actually investigate and run the real story.
======================================================================
“We have this slight anomaly where for a period newco were not members of the SFA from June 14 until being granted membership on August 3.”
question – what was the reason for this “anomaly” ?
arbitration – how long before the “chair’s” identity is divulged ? [i.e, intimidation]
ordinaryfan says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 17:36
5 0 i Rate This
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:11
30 0 Rate This
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:56
This is from The Rangers offical site regarding compensation payments for players who left
“We have this slight anomaly where for a period newco were not members of the SFA from June 14 until being granted membership on August 3.”
…
……………….
I wonder if the players Insurance and even the Stadium Insurance was valid for that game.
=========================================
I was thinking exactly the same thing myself.
Last season, I was convinced that any ‘successor’ club to RFC(IA) would have to take a season out -as there simply would not be enough time to be up and running for the new season – e.g. to negotiate contracts with possibly ‘new’ suppliers, to name but one area of complexity.
I would guess that – allegedly – some serious short-cuts where taken during the summer wrt TRFC ?
one good thing about resetting the points is that once a club knows what split it will be in, it can experiment with younger players until the split occurs.
nawlite says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:26
=====
I am not convinced yet that TSFM could / should have an agreed view on matters other than very basic principles and also on those occasions when there is a natural coming together of views.
In the example you give of reconstruction, there is a principle involved that would unite all on TSFM …. the discussions and decisions are based on improving our game and not as an excuse for assisting Whitstheirname FC.
Beyond that there are numerous and honourable opinions and I think that there is no need for ‘party’ discipline.
I will consider all other contributions to this part of the debate and may be convinced but I am not yet.
Dingwall on sky sports ,[one thing Mr Green has said and I agree with him is we are in a mess and lets not get ourselves into a bigger mess] ,now ,where ,when and to whom did Chuckie say this to ,has Dingwall let another cat out of the bag.
nawlite says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:26
I’m in the camp that hasn’t a clue what is best in terms of league reconstruction, I don’t think that was on your list. I am willing to be persuaded one way or the other I suppose if I have the arguments before me. It would be great if you could sit down and the differing camps go up and do a presentation on why they feel that this of that permentation would be best. A presentation on each of the options could be done by individuals on You Tube, no need for coupon shots to protect the innocent, a commentary would done to go with a flip chart or whatever.
What I can say is that I have never been a fan of playing 4 times a season and I often wondered (but have never done the maths to see) if 3 points instead of the old 2 suits the stronger teams and creates the big gap between the clubs.
Anyone just hear the last call on SSB was it a certain rabble rouser from down south ,when asked if he was from yorkshire he denied it .
Really needs to be heard ,I kid you not
There is a lot to be said for Scottish Football. We can be sure of that.
Indeed saying things about Scottish Football has never been more popular or at least it’s never been more visible.
Scottish football is about to reconstruct, good news I hear you say. The old construct had a few problems.
The old construct might have had a few less problems had it not been for the runaway greed, power and destructive influence of one of its most notable teams, but lets move on and make things better.
A successful reconstruction in whatever form firstly requires agreement but more importantly it has to be sold.
Big it it up! Ring the bell! Scottish Football is great! Come along or watch on TV. Some of the stadiums are small, quaint even, isn’t that fantastic?
We are so lucky, what a wonderful sport we have, Scotland sized but full of spice.
Great names, Raith Rovers, St Mirren, Inverness Caledonian Thistle and so many more.
It sounds like poetry to me.
Those who wish to leave, please do so, quietly. We have had enough of your destructive noise.
Old Paul McConville article on Rangers membership but quite interesting .
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/07/the-legal-aspect-of-rangers-and-the-sfa-membership/
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 16:06
If the end of the SPL as a body is upon us is this the end of the road for Mr Doncaster?
——
Don’t know, but the end of the SPL would mean completely meaningless sanctions resulting from LNS. After all, his investigation is under SPL Rules.
The most he could do is say that players were not properly registered with the SPL. This may lead to the eventual loss of titles unfairly won, but it wouldn’t much surprise me if the ultimate sanction was a 100 year ban on TRFC from playing in the SPL (which will not exist). 😉
Here’s one – the SPL ceases to exist before the result of LNS is known, or so soon after that there’s no time to act on it. No-one will be there to declare those SPL titles unfairly won (LNS will only conclude that players were wrongly registered, it would be the SPL who do the surgery on the trophies).
Surely the whole reconstruction hasn’t been fabricated in a huge rush just to avoid the stripping of titles in this way?
Wouldn’t that be handy?
My view re reconstruction
I wish we played each other TWICE a season
FOUR times a season reduced me to a part time supporter
i.e. I go when I fancy it … as opposed to nearly every game Home & Away
A wee question I may have missed the answer to
IF the 12 – 12 – 18 goes ahead
Who wins the SPL2 ???
Guys, thanks for the early comments. Iki, I know what you mean – I don’t want us to all be ‘one party, Stepford wives’ types, but if all we do is have lots of good people posting on here with an opinion on what might be wrong with a proposal or what might be better than a proposal, then I don’t know how that helps us be effective in challenging anything that is not good for the game, not fair on clubs/fans etc.
Sorry, I don’t have an answer but it feels to me like we’re currently a group of like-minded individuals who want to post our individual thoughts on what we like/don’t like. That’s no way to influence change, is it? I believe we should be trying to be more than a talking shop and to be fair the likes of Auldheid’s letter might be an example of that starting to happen.
angus1983 says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 19:35
8
0
Rate This
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 16:06
If the end of the SPL as a body is upon us is this the end of the road for Mr Doncaster?
——
Don’t know, but the end of the SPL would mean completely meaningless sanctions resulting from LNS. After all, his investigation is under SPL Rules.
The most he could do is say that players were not properly registered with the SPL. This may lead to the eventual loss of titles unfairly won, but it wouldn’t much surprise me if the ultimate sanction was a 100 year ban on TRFC from playing in the SPL (which will not exist).
Here’s one – the SPL ceases to exist before the result of LNS is known, or so soon after that there’s no time to act on it. No-one will be there to declare those SPL titles unfairly won (LNS will only conclude that players were wrongly registered, it would be the SPL who do the surgery on the trophies).
Surely the whole reconstruction hasn’t been fabricated in a huge rush just to avoid the stripping of titles in this way?
Wouldn’t that be handy?
==========================
Angus,
I alluded to this as being the end game in a post yesterday. The rush to close down the SPL is too quick for my liking. We have discussed various changes that would benefit the game over the last few years but never was the SPL portrayed so much as the ‘Big Bad Wolf’ as it has been over the last few days. What is being discussed is reconstruction COUPLED with annuling the LNS findings. Corruption is never far from the surface in this wee country.
Re. the proposal of amalgamating the SPL/SFL as a result of reconstruction. Maybe these guys have half a brain after-all. If the manage to amalgamate the two bodies this will automatically allow for them to step down with a massive severance figure being paid. This is a very attractive vista for these boys compared to what’s on offer if they continue on their present course.
Carfin’s: my apologies, I missed your post. Wasn’t trying to steal your idea. 🙂
angus1983 says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 20:31
0
0
Rate This
Carfin’s: my apologies, I missed your post. Wasn’t trying to steal your idea
Angus. Never meant to imply.
Guess who is the ref for the Rangers away game on Saturday?
No peeking.
seen it last week, Steven MacLean, our “ref” from the Motherwell game,whose brother is an ex rangers and Northern ireland internationalist, who`s dad is an ex pro with Kilmarnock who asked for his testimonial game to be against Rangers.
Think we can rule out any kind of upset.
There are two things wrong with the proposed league reconstruction:
1. Structure
2. Timescale
The structure was discussed last night on Radio 5. To the amusement of all it was explained thus; ‘In order to reduce the number of leagues from four, three leagues will play half of the season then split into four’!
This system was abandoned as a failure in Austria 12 years ago with crowds and finances plummeting after 8 years.
There will be no champion in the, er, Championship at the end of the season. There is talk of a prize giving at the end of the autumn term. The new league formed by the bottom four of the Premiership and the top four of the Championship (bear with me here, I’m getting bored just trying to write this!) will have their points zeroed. Therefore for these 8 clubs their future will be decided over only 14 games.
There are details that have not been released. Will there be a period at around the halfway stage where no games are scheduled to allow for postponed fixtures to be played? Today, in SFL1 three clubs have played 19 games, three only 16 and the rest in between. Given our weather, this needs to be allowed for. Especially as another rumour I have heard is that undersoil heating rules are to be relaxed to ease financial pressure on smaller clubs.
Hopefully, those who have decided to put this forward as the only viable option have actually got all of the answers and the 41 clubs will be voting on a full package of measures and not rumours.
The one thing that fans of all clubs have shown, over the last year, that they hold uppermost in their hearts and minds is sporting integrity. Surely this means that at the start of the season everybody knows what they are playing for. Therefore any restructuring decided upon now should not come into play until the following season.
One thing I may have missed in the reconstruction debate: with the projected demise of the spl, what becomes of the payment of, if I recall correctly £1.5 million, to the Scottish Football League members?
Would I be correct that this was promised from the spl to be paid ‘in perpetuity’? Now, if that is the case, and the leagues will be run by a ‘single league body’ (Longmuir), I’m a bit puzzled who will be paying this stream of cash payments that supposedly continues forever.
£50000 per smaller club per year (£1.5 million divided by 30) is an awful lot of cash to lose. Why would the bottom 18 sign up for the 12-12-18 when they stand to lose an annuity which was promised to run endlessly?
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
liveinhop says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 20:59
——————————————————-
I have a brother who is an absolute idiot, I have a sister who is one of the most intelligent people I know, I am not like either of them. I have another family member who likes Aberdeen FC and parents who have/had no interest in football whatsoever.
Please judge me and others on our own actions and characters….
Let’s not cheapen the forum.
StevieBC says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 18:07
ordinaryfan says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 17:36
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:11
paradisebhoy says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 12:56
“We have this slight anomaly where for a period newco were not members of the SFA from June 14 until being granted membership on August 3.”
—————————————————————————————————————
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/1478-club-statement
RANGERS chairman Malcolm Murray and Chief Executive Charles Green have today given their reaction to the club being granted SFA membership.
Malcolm Murray, Chairman of The Rangers Football Club, said, “The Club has finally been granted SFA membership which means we can now move forward and focus on the future.
“This is a new beginning for Rangers and its supporters. We have a difficult but exciting journey ahead and we want fans to enjoy watching their team play again at Ibrox and on our travels.
This is lifted from the same website that states they have an anomaly. It is dated/published on 27th July 2012 which is obviously a date prior to August 3rd 2012.
Any of the MSM want to ask the question why?
Didnae think so
I am depressed reading about the LNS verdict being null and void due to the possible scenario of the
” reconstruction COUPLED with annuling the LNS findings”
Can anyone cheer me up?
jean7brodie says:
Can anyone cheer me up?
======
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rplaYVgBk0E&feature=player_embedded
jean7brodie says: Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 22:40 0 0 Rate This
I am depressed reading about the LNS verdict being null and void due to the possible scenario of the ” reconstruction COUPLED with annuling the LNS findings”
——————————–
I would have thought that the ‘new’ bosses of Scottish football would still have jurisdiction over titles unfairly won in the past. Would the constitution of the new organisation not have to retain some continuity?
I think it was Humble Pie (?) who raised the perfectly valid point that any amalgamation of the SPL/SFL would NOT involve dissolving both companies, i.e. they would want to avoid re-negotiating contracts/sponsorships with partners.
So the SPL Ltd. company would still exist, at least for the duration of commercial contracts. (?)
But as we have witnessed during the summer with the SFA/SPL, this would not neccessarily stop a new body from being creative with its own articles/rules of membership, e.g. the new body will not bring forward any outstanding football related matters from the SPL/SFL ?
Thanks iki that almost did it but I now wnat to vomit!!
sorry!! ‘Want’
Re Tupe: been TUPED 4 times in 12 years. If this goes in front of an Employment tribunal the players will win hands down.
But will it.
As the player agent club contract may nullify this. Might get murky and even more interesting than Chuckles thinks or wants. Back to EBT land maybes or other “add ons”.
Re reconstruction. For me leave it alone. All the figures prove we dont need it and the league is the best its been in years.
Well seen Motherwell (a fan owned club) not at the meetings.
I return again to the real sticking point. Nothing at all will happen until the 11-1 voting structure is changed.
That then changes the game again. So for me its a no go this year or any year until that changes.
Charlie the fairground barker.
Roll up. Roll up. Roll up.
Roll up your trouser legs and give me your money.
i am undecided re league reconstruction. Is CG along with MSM double bluffing. He has the bears jumping up and down but it does not take very much and is irrelevant.
The more I think about it, the more i can see more interesting games. We need more relegation and promotion to spice up the fixtures and spread out the benefits.
If this proposal gets postponed by one season, i want it postponed 3 seasons otherwise its a fast track vehicle. I am not bothered about payoffs for Doncaster and co, we all know people at that level always get payoffs no matter how they perform.
As for CG stating he will play the same teams again…just like the playing in the SPL, we all play the same teams each season.
With reference to RFI shares: its a busted flush so far. 17million shares on offer and about£ 400,000 “traded”so far. If I was (not Charles as hes quids in)I would be getting worried.
An interesting discussion on twitter about an hour ago with Grant Russell of STV. He is of the opinion that It is the same club.
@STVGrant: @DanielOConnel18 @shaungibson1967 @johnronnie42 There’s a club playing as the Rangers member in Scotland recognised by SFA, UEFA et al.
@STVGrant: @DanielOConnel18 @shaungibson1967 @johnronnie42 I’m entirely comfortable with my viewpoint based on UEFA’s advice, and SFA m’ship transfer.
Poor old Charles – he is now suffering from Post Xmas fatigue
Remember on Xmas morning when you opened that present and were all excited over the many uses that the diary could have in the following year……and by 1st week of Jan it was stuck in a drawer next to your bed only to be thrown out in 3 years time…..
He was all excited – he had this brand new shiny club that was going to go to new places and win friends and make new acquantences in his march through the leagues.
I know exactly how he feels though
In my youth when the EC was for champions, I managed to go to some places in Europe to see some teams I had never seen or visted before (or since for many) – Aarhus, Real Sociedad, Nottingham Forrest, Sporting Lisbon, Ajax Amsterdam, Werder Bremen, Dortmund, Ghent, Juventus, Patizan Belgrade and Raspid Vienna to name but a few.
Now we have this new format – its the same old teams we play every time
Barcelona, Juventus, Benfica, AC Milan, Man Utd – its boring!!!
I can feel your pain Charlie!!! 🙂
@STVGrant: @DanielOConnel18 @shaungibson1967 @johnronnie42 I’m entirely comfortable with my viewpoint based on UEFA’s advice, and SFA m’ship transfer.
Perfect logic. So if New Co didn’t take the share and it went to another Club, any other Club, that Club would or maybe could? (They might have a choice) “be” Rangers F.C founded in 1872. Yep, I can see how that explains it.
*Share…..meant Membership.
So on that logic, if the SFA membership for RFC-RIP went to Spartans, then Spartans woudl be the same club as TRFC now are?
Good job logic is not needed in his job then 🙂
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 20:21
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 16:06
If the end of the SPL as a body is upon us is this the end of the road for Mr Doncaster?
——
Don’t know, but the end of the SPL would mean completely meaningless sanctions resulting from LNS. After all, his investigation is under SPL Rules.
The most he could do is say that players were not properly registered with the SPL. This may lead to the eventual loss of titles unfairly won, but it wouldn’t much surprise me if the ultimate sanction was a 100 year ban on TRFC from playing in the SPL (which will not exist).
Here’s one – the SPL ceases to exist before the result of LNS is known, or so soon after that there’s no time to act on it. No-one will be there to declare those SPL titles unfairly won (LNS will only conclude that players were wrongly registered, it would be the SPL who do the surgery on the trophies).
Surely the whole reconstruction hasn’t been fabricated in a huge rush just to avoid the stripping of titles in this way?
Wouldn’t that be handy?
==========================
Angus,
I alluded to this as being the end game in a post yesterday. The rush to close down the SPL is too quick for my liking. We have discussed various changes that would benefit the game over the last few years but never was the SPL portrayed so much as the ‘Big Bad Wolf’ as it has been over the last few days. What is being discussed is reconstruction COUPLED with annuling the LNS findings. Corruption is never far from the surface in this wee country.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m thinking the ultimate responsibility for dealing with the “dual contracts” issue lies with the SFA. The SPL are only dealing with it because the SFA will hear any appeal.
troyblain says:
Wednesday, January 9, 2013 at 18:49
Would Chuckles not need 3 years accounts for any ‘other’ league?
———————————
didn’t he buy the accounts
———————————-
They not worth the paper they weren’t written on.
EPL tells Chuckie, no chance of joining them.
ok simple question if sevco? are THE ALMOST DEAD RFC and the membership was transferred over to sevco?WHY do sevco? only have an associate membership and not ALMOST DEAD RFC`s full membership ,as for the anomaly other teams have been hounded for lesser charges than playing without membership and registered players a full team in this case WHY no out cry from the SMSM
nawlite says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:26
I don’t believe you can have a discussion forum AND an overall consensus. Surely this defeats the purpose of a discussion forum?
whisperer18 says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 19:43
My view re reconstruction
I wish we played each other TWICE a season
FOUR times a season reduced me to a part time supporter
i.e. I go when I fancy it … as opposed to nearly every game Home & Away
A wee question I may have missed the answer to
IF the 12 – 12 – 18 goes ahead
Who wins the SPL2 ???
—————————————————————-
A good question and one that needs addressing if it is supposed to be about (in part anyway) about making football more interesting for the fans.
I guess no one wins it but promotion could be won – however since it could turn out the 4 from SPL 1 ended staying up by getting the top 4 places in their “8” then no promotion might be won. Maybe some shield will be offered for coming first of the 8.
I’m sure this may be what is agreeable to SPL sides as they must have a bigger advantage over SPL 2 sides in a mini-league with 14 games (where a stronger squad would count more) than in say some kind of play off situation where cup style knock out over two games gives the lower league teams more of a chance.
Teams from bottom half of SPL 1 may be on a “downer” while SPL 2 teams more on an “up” but over 14 games that could easily be reversed. I can’t think of any way round this though with the 8-8-8 break up. I guess that fairly often one SPL 1 side might struggle enough to make one promotion place available. Would there be a tempatation for top half of SPL 2 teams in to overspend in the winter window to overcome the SPL 1 sides’ squad advantage?
I’m tempted to suggest some kind of cup competition to keep interest but could it be fitted in? It would have to take place when League cup and Scottish Cup were coming to a head.
What this does show I think is that the thing needs more thought – by me at least if by no one else.
Messrs Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster, Longmuir & Green (and their supporting cast) have one thing in common – each appears to have a huge blindspot in their oh so blue eyes .
None of them can see that the earthquake of cheating and corruption which has been felt throughout Scottish Football will soon bring a tsunami of rejection which will engulf all of them.
Can’t wait.
nawlite says:
Thursday, January 10, 2013 at 15:26
I don’t believe you can have a discussion forum AND an overall consensus. Surely this defeats the purpose of a discussion forum?
=========================================================================
I don’t actually believe they are always necessarily mutually exclusive. There are times when the discussions can reach an overall consensus which is better informed through the debate which have taken place.
Obviously there are times when the discussions won’t reach an overall consensus but I would doubt that there would often be more than 2/3 distinctly different positions arrived at – once they are clearly identified there is always the possibility that it could drop to 1 or 2 when people reflect on the by then clearly identified alternatives.
I believe the key we MUST remember is that we don’t possess the Holy Grail of always getting it right when it comes to sorting the problems of Scottish Football nor are we clairvoyant and always able to determine the best path forward for the game.
I would see the role of TSFM when dealing with external bodies or fellow football supporters to act as honest brokers with a certain level of expertise and experience which could be valuable to others interested in Scottish Football.
We also must accept that we can never be aware of the whole picture as there is so much confidential commercial information that we will never have access to. But when we offer our opinion or possibly 2 or 3 positions the people we are dealing with may well have information that can ‘change’ our 3rd position into the top spot and if there is honest broking at work then I would hope that our forum could then reach if not an ‘overall’ consensus then certainly a more fully informed consensus.
I also think it important that we fully understand the roles & responsibilities of people and organisations that we are attempting to reach out to. I, for one, don’t see it as our mission to lay-down the blueplan for Scottish Football but rather to have input into the design and drawing of it. And, more importantly, to see that it is observed and any deviations from it made public and involve full consultation with the paying public.
The trick, and this is the difficult bit, is to prove that our input is not only necessary but objective, balanced and productive. Otherwise we will be left carping on the sidelines possibly making better judgement calls than the officials but our voice will carry no further than this forum.
======================================================================
“We have this slight anomaly where for a period newco were not members of the SFA from June 14 until being granted membership on August 3.”
question – what was the reason for this “anomaly”.
why were sevco not members of the SFA from June 14 to aug 3rd ?
question – were sevco members of the SPL or SFL within those 6weeks?
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/209350-mat-ryan-calls-off-rangers-trial-over-uncertainty-on-clubs-league-future/
Awaiting the inevitable outburst from chuckles now.
Well done Utd
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/sport/football/dundee-united/dundee-united-sell-3-000-tickets-for-hotly-anticipated-gers-clash-1.64456
ianagain says:
Friday, January 11, 2013 at 00:06
With reference to RFI shares: its a busted flush so far. 17million shares on offer and about £400,000 “traded”so far. If I was (not Charles as hes quids in) I would be getting worried.
=======================================================================
I would not agree with your ‘busted-flush’ scenario. The Rangers International shares purchased approx 3 weeks ago at 70p are around 88p today which is a nice earner for those who want to take a short-term profit although I have my own views as to what might happen in the longer term.
But there are other factors at work such as the £5 million of shares bought by fans which will seldom be traded unless a very pressing personal financial situation forces a sale.
There is also an interesting point in that supporters who paid their £500 to get 714 Rangers International shares could now sell say 700 and keep the money and, if the share price fell, buy in at that price and increase their shareholding in the club funded by using the capitalist maket system – Even as a Celtic supporter I see a sense of justice in that 🙂 Obviously I am not offering any financial advice and anyone contemplating the purchase or sale of any shares should seek the appropriate professional advice.
Interestingly since Rangers International was floated the Celtic share price has gone up and is doing very well which I am sure was never an intended consequence of the Rangers International float 🙂
However, back to Rangers International shares – as well as the supporters £5 million worth there are locked-in shares which can’t currently be sold.
Directors and key personnel ( Ally & Imran Ahmad) hold approx 9,247,345 Ordinary Shares which can’t be sold for 12 months followed by an orderly marketing agreement for a further
6 months where they require prior consent of the Company’s broker Cenkos to sell shares.
Rangers International and Cenkos have also entered into orderly market agreements with certain other Shareholders holding 16,375,000 Ordinary Shares for a period of six months
from 19 December 2012.
At Admission there were approximately 65 million Rangers International sharess in Admission. But over 30 million shares – explained above – just aren’t freely available to trade currently and neither are many more millions for a host of reasons because of who the shareholders are and their reasons for investing in the first place.
ianagain,
it’s one thing for individual fans to boycott the game but when this boycott gets the official imprimatur from the club then it is past time for the authorities to act. These are the people who wish to reconstruct the leagues!
Just an innocent question, what would happen if every other club in Scotland boycotted each other?
ianagain says:
Friday, January 11, 2013 at 11:26
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/209350-mat-ryan-calls-off-rangers-trial-over-uncertainty-on-clubs-league-future/
Awaiting the inevitable outburst from chuckles now.
——————————————
Sorry why would there be any doubt? 3rd div or 3rd div. Unless somebody’s been making false promises.
Just an innocent question, what would happen if every other club in Scotland boycotted Rangers International?
“Any hopes held by Rangers of being accelerated through the leagues under the new setup were dashed by Scottish football chiefs earlier this week.”
_________________________
Quote from an Australian source. Apologies ianagain.
Dashed me granny – if they don’t make it on ground capacity stipulations etc, they will make it the legal (sic) system route. Once the door is opened they are away with it!
Boycott – I think two can play that game.
It may be a bit late, but if all clubs were to insist that unless the official sanction is lifted regarding Rangers International boycotting Dundee then they, in turn, will boycott all Rangers International fixtures – it’s call Solidarity.
anagain says:
Friday, January 11, 2013 at 11:26
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/209350-mat-ryan-calls-off-rangers-trial-over-uncertainty-on-clubs-league-future/Published on Friday 11 January 2013 07:02
========================================================================
Ecobhoy said: We all know that a day is a long time in media coverage but this is getting ridiculous. Maybe Traynor should put a 24-hour embargo on all Ibrox press releases so they can be changed before they are published – journos do not take kindly to internet clatterers feeding them duff stories and making them look stupid.
One thing it illustrates is that feeding candyfloss to the media can sometimes go down the wrong hole. Jim should stick to the succulent lamb as it worked for him apparently 🙂
Let me remind you what went out worldwide – ignore the journey back to the top of the Scottish game pap and concentrate on the how the wonderful news coverage is going to have foreign players beating at the Ibrox gates. I wonder if anyone has alerted this new potential flood of visa seekers so the Border Agency can staff-up at Glasgow Airport.
——————————————————————————————————————
“Manager Ally McCoist believes the worldwide coverage of Rangers’ demotion to Scottish football’s bottom tier can help him attract players to Ibrox.
“The story has attracted interest from around the world, with a number of foreign reporters present at media conferences and matches this season as Rangers begins its journey back to the top of the Scottish game. And McCoist hopes such widespread exposure can boost his chances of selling the club to potential signing targets.
McCoist said: “We’ve got a massive list of players from all over the world which we are looking over at the moment.
“We’re keeping on top of the SPL players because we’d be crazy not to but we’re looking far outwith that as well. We’ve had camera crews and journalists here from all over the world and what is happening here has very much become a global story.”
Never a truer word spoken Ally – maybe you should leave the media announcements to the professionals and start reading-up on football tactics as these b*ggers in SFL3 will have a better idea how to play you next time round 🙂