Rangers are liquidated

[Caro-Kann]

Why is "outwith" an acceptable word in Jockoland?

Indeed, "outwith" is rarely used outwith Scotland. I myself only discovered this a
couple of years ago when dealing with colleagues south of the border.
We also have Examination "diets", which I think is peculiar to us Jocks.

... and why can't a Scottish football administrator have the balls to say "We want to rewrite the rules and ride roughshod all over you little clubs to accomodate the mighty Glasgow Rangers?"

Very good question.

[Bruce Rioja]

Why is "outwith" an acceptable word in Jockoland?

Indeed, "outwith" is rarely used outwith Scotland. I myself only discovered this a
couple of years ago when dealing with colleagues south of the border.
We also have Examination "diets", which I think is peculiar to us Jocks.

Along with "Perfectly legal tender" when attempting to pass off a Willie Carson 20 in an English shop.

[fatshaft]

Why is "outwith" an acceptable word in Jockoland?

Indeed, "outwith" is rarely used outwith Scotland. I myself only discovered this a
couple of years ago when dealing with colleagues south of the border.
We also have Examination "diets", which I think is peculiar to us Jocks.

Along with "Perfectly legal tender" when attempting to pass off a Willie Carson 20 in an English shop.

[fatshaft]

none of these teams got automatically relegated to the bottom division. strictly, they were not even relegated one division. they were merely deducted a set number (ten ? or so) of points.

None of them liquidated either though, which is what the Huns have done, on top of all their cheating of course.

Is it looking like Div.1 or Div.3?

It is looking more and more like the SFL clubs will stick their fingers up to bullying, and vote Div3. There is a sneaking suspicion that a few will not vote for them at all. If Spartans or Cove get their act together and apply for the vacant slot, oh boy.

[fatshaft]

none of these teams got automatically relegated to the bottom division. strictly, they were not even relegated one division. they were merely deducted a set number (ten ? or so) of points.

None of them liquidated either though, which is what the Huns have done, on top of all their cheating of course.

How acceptable is it to call someone a Hun in Scotland ? I know in N.I it will be rather offensive and the reply back would be Fenian/taig. Sorry if that offends but I've seen rangers being called huns from outside N.I and I'm just wanderering the context

Perfectly acceptable. The equivalent of Hun is Tim (Tim Malloys), no religious conotation, rather than the bigoted slang used by Huns you quote above.

[fatshaft]

This is a huge read, but well worth the bother, from RTC blog:

Stewart Regan tonight stands condemned by one of the most appalling press interviews ever given by a senior official in the Scottish game. But before I start talking about what he did say, let's be very clear on what he didn't say; he didn't say that there will be social unrest if Rangers are not in SFL 1. He used the term "social unrest" in the context of there being no Rangers whatsoever … or at least, no NewCo club bearing that name. I will defend him from that charge – which at least one Celtic website has repeated, without getting its facts right – but no other. For this is a man who has run out his rope, and should now be sent on his way.

We are facing a truly astonishing, historic, and potentially devastating moment for Scottish football here. Tonight, we have the head of the Scottish Football Association – a man brought in to revolutionise and modernize the game – threatening the smallest clubs, those who his "duty of care" is greatest to, with penury for daring to put the integrity of the sport first. This is a scandal paralleled only by what is going at Ibrox, and in doing so he has lashed himself to the mast of that sinking ship. His handling of this whole crisis has been a joke, from the way he has defended Campbell Ogilvie through to his statements tonight, which annihilate any credibility he had.

It is untenable for the head of the game's governing body to threaten member clubs who are putting the well-being and reputation of the sport first. He cannot survive it.

The logic of his position is so twisted contemplating it requires copious amounts of Jack Daniels; he is saying that Rangers must be an SPL club this time next year. Not only is he suggesting that he will refuse to acknowledge the will of the SFL clubs in this matter, but he is actually threatening the very integrity of next year's First Division title race itself, before a ball is even kicked. This makes this a unique and horrifyingly history maker in world sport – a governing body leader actually blatantly, openly and unequivocally prejudicing the outcome of a sporting event. It is almost unfathomable, a moment that has no parallel or precedent. How UEFA and FIFA can stand back and allow I cannot even begin to comprehend, but if there was ever a time for member clubs to report their national association to the continental body then this is surely it. My sincere hope is that not one club but many clubs will do so, and ask UEFA to act with urgency to resolve it.

But we cannot wait for UEFA. This goes much deeper now than just the future of the club calling itself Rangers. It is an issue so vast it dwarfs even that.

This may have begun with a scandal at Ibrox, but this scandal now goes to the heart of everything about the game here, and the people who run it. They have shown themselves to be craven, self-interested, shameless and incompetent. But more than that, they have proven themselves to be thoroughly and undisputedly corrupt.

Stewart Regan, Neil Doncaster and David Longmuir have shamed and disgraced their offices.

These people first tried to ram Rangers in the SPL down our throats. Rules would be ignored or just rewritten to accommodate it. Doncaster told journalists off and on the record that he wanted the club in the league "no matter what" they had done – thus prejudicing an independent investigation which his own organisation was running, and casting a dark shadow over another investigation being held by the SFA itself. This marked him out early as an enemy of the sporting integrity of the game, and as someone who could not be trusted to do what was right.

As an independent committee of the SFA – one removed from the "old ways" (and we know what that means alright) of doing things- delivered its hammer blow against Rangers by imposing a signing ban, there was talk their decision had shocked Stewart Regan to the core. His behaviour since would indicate that this is the case; he did not do anything to stop Rangers taking the case to the Court of Session, and he has refused to punish them for doing so. The SFA committee which is to impose the new penalty has yet to be reconvened. His comments tonight have prejudiced that future committee as surely as Doncaster's remarks of earlier have prejudiced the SPL one.

For that alone, both men should be calling taxis. Yet they didn't stop there.

Did David Longmuir pen the now notorious "consultation document"? Unknown. But he would have seen it, and he would have had to approve it. From a stance where he stated, plainly, football integrity had no price and that NewCo Rangers could not be put in the SFL at any level other than the bottom, where he actually stated that there was "no mechanism" for doing so, he has turned 90 degrees. His position now is that it can be done and furthermore that it should be done, nee must be done, and that sporting integrity comes second to commercial considerations.

He too should be packing his pencils when this thing is resolved.

Doncaster's fingerprints were all over that "consultation document." So too were Regan's. They either authored it or commissioned it, and pushed it on him. But he accepted it without questioning it, and now is willing to subvert the rules of his own organisation because of it despite the fact the numbers in at are impossible to verify, and its key assertions have been openly questioned, with one chairman (Raith Rovers, step forward Turnbull) flatly telling the media that he did not believe them. He is not alone in holding that view, as many other club officials have verified over the last few days. This crisis spread from the SPL to the SFA and now infects the SFL.

In supporting the assertion that the SPL needs Newco there within a year he too is prejudicing the outcome of next season before it even begins, by accepting the caveat that Scottish football needs Rangers to be promoted. If they find themselves in SFL 1 the simple fact is that David Longmuir, Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan will have accepted a premise whereby the SFL's flagship competition starts with a pre-determined outcome. There will be a clearly stated "requirement" that Newco move up from his organisation's own flagship league, before a ball is kicked. He is violating the very ethos of sport itself and if there has been a more flagrant breach of faith with the notion of a "level playing field" I have never heard of it, in anywhere, in any game.

All of this is cause enough to fire these people with immediate effect.

Yet they went further.

Doncaster has lied to clubs at every stage, including, if you believe Charles Green tonight, and there is no reason not to, Newco Rangers itself. With the vote outcome looking tough, he tried to cobble together a package of "acceptable sanctions", to arrange a hasty pre-vote meeting to sell his wares and then attempted to have the meeting itself postponed – which would have thrown the entire game in this country into unimaginable chaos. He even tried to sell the idea of a secret ballot, all the easier to flog his scandalous plans and afford "deniability" to people who, themselves, would have had to have lied to their own supporters.

It is to the credit of the chairmen that they rejected the suggestion outright.

David Longmuir has now subverted his own organisation to the extent he screwing with the voting system, changing their rules on the hoof and is actually banning one club from having a vote at all. And then there's tonight, and Regan …

What we might be about to see will make everything that has come before seem legitimate.

The subversion of two independent panels, with the guilt of Rangers already established will be a seismic event which will be felt in the halls at Nyon and Zurich. The punishments in those cases are enough to wipe Newco off the map – the very thing Regan has said would cause "social unrest". That those committees will be "leaned on" is now without doubt.

Yet something even more staggering may be coming.

If the SFL clubs follow through on their principles, and Rangers Newco is treated like any other club, and thereby must start in SFL 3, these men have suggested they may apply a truly nuclear solution to what they view as "the problem."

David Longmuir and Neil Doncaster, with the connivance of Stewart Regan, may actually, wilfully, destroy their own organisations and start again. Longmuir may sell out any number of the clubs he has a direct responsibility to support and care for. The guardians of the sport may actually annihilate it instead … deliberately, to get their way.

The fans have said no. The clubs will have said no. There will be a complete unification of will, save for a few hold-outs who will see some advantage for themselves in the chaos. The overwhelming opinion of almost everyone who TRULY matters will have been heard, will have been given, and will have been wilfully rejected as without merit. The views of the clubs will have been ignored. The views of the fans will have been treated with contempt.

Only a small number of chairmen actually WANT this. The fans are almost united in their rejection of it. Incredibly, if you polled the supporters of every club the view would be UNANIMOUS. Even the fans of the club all this is being done for do not WANT it. Their own rejection might be coached in their typical ego, arrogance and even hate … but their view is no less valid because of that, and their opinion no less valuable.

No decision in the history of sport has ever been taken in the face of overwhelming opposition. The views of everyone in it, from chairmen to paying customers, have never been ridden roughshod over to this staggering degree. How can the sport survive if the fans who follow it, the clubs which make it up and the rules which underpin it are ALL systematically destroyed in such a fashion? How can men of supposed intelligence ever believe this would be accepted?

Furthermore, the entire SPL 2 thing is a bluff, as anyone who looks at it must be acutely aware. If Rangers Newco is voted into Division 3 that is where they will be next season and no amount of bluster or fury will change that fact, because a restructuring of the game along SPL 2 lines would take a minimum of one year to implement, and would plunge the entire game into civil war, with no hope of any outcome which did not devastate the sport.

It cannot be done in that timeframe and it will not be done in that timeframe. If it is going to happen at all it would have to be done at the end of the season, and that would assure an entire summer of battling and legal disputes which would make this close-season seem like a warm up fight before a heavyweight title bout.

What would it involve? Well it would involve Newco Rangers not simply starting its existence two leagues above where it belonged but would see a club one year old discarding the whole notion of sporting meritocracy and leaping over two or more entire divisions to take a seat at the top table … putting Scottish football not on a par with professional sports but with Snakes and Ladders. It is hard to imagine the outrage it would cause from the fans of each and every club in the country, not to mention the legal war which would erupt.

We would, in that scenario, be looking at a thermonuclear version of where we were a month or so ago, with NO fans buying season tickets, with boycott threats ten decibels higher and with rage underpinning them which would sweep entire boards of directors away if they dared resist. You want to look at a Year Zero scenario? That would be it. What's more, knowing that such a thing was coming, the fans response would be planned well in advance and instead of coming from individual supporters of single clubs it would be a co-ordinated effort of mammoth proportions, with deadly consequences underpinning it all the way. It would be multi-club, unifying fans from all across the game, and it would be devastatingly effective. Sky would find itself with less customers, bookmakers with less punters and soft drinks manufacturers finding themselves second, for the first time ever, to the multinationals on their own doorstep.

In other words, Year Zero for more than just football.

How long do you think such a setup could be sustained? How many seasons could it succeed? I would wager that within a year we would be rebooting … again.

But none of that has to happen. There is a way forward which can resolve these issues and make things go a lot more smoothly. There is a way in which fan power can be exercised early, to resolve these matters and bring closure, and clarity, to this situation.

The supporters who have lobbied their clubs thus far, the clubs who feel they have been let down, the people who have acted with courage, all of them can do so one last time. Fans can contact their directors and make one last demand. Directors can convene EGM's. Those who believe they have been told lies can choose to act. One more time, let the campaign begin.

The three men who have dithered, obfuscated and even lied; the men who would subvert the rules; the men who would prejudice naturally occurring outcomes; the men who prevaricated, stalled and even hidden away when the going got tough can be removed from their posts before they do any further damage. It takes just ONE group of fans to influence ONE club in each section of our game. Those fans would force their board to table motions of No Confidence in the chief executive of their respective part of the structure … and that will trigger the vote.

Does anyone believe for ONE SECOND these men have served their respective bodies well? Does anyone believe any of them could successfully argue for their jobs, in the light of forensic examination of their roles? Doncaster, for one, claims financial cataclysm will be inflicted on the SPL should Rangers not be in it for more than one year; can he survive the scrutiny into who's fault that is? Can he survive when he negotiated the very contracts which he claims will be nullified in that instance, when he, and everyone in Scotland, knew something like this was, more than likely, on its way? Can Longmuir survive being party to threatening his own members?

Can Stewart Regan survive considering his appalling statements tonight, and the way in which they prejudice so many of the underlying principles of our game?

My money would be laid against it.

Tonight, for the first time I can recall following football, I feel part of a fraternity, that of the Scottish football supporter, for a long time ignored, for a long time disdained, for a long time without a voice or a way to express it. All of that is over. We have the power.

Now we have to use it. Not in the interests of our own clubs, but in the interests of the game itself. We have spoken up for integrity in the SPL and we have won.

Now it is time to speak up for the sport, against those who betrayed it.

Nothing we do as fans will ever be more important. This is not about which clubs we follow, but about the integrity, reputation and future of the game itself here in this country.

Regan – Doncaster – Longmuir. Out. Out. Out.

[Bruce Rioja]

How come the other clubs are now being given until the 13th? Haven't they had long enough to decide?

[Lord Kangana]

Money talks. Rangers, or whatever the f*ck they want to call themselves, will eventually win. Regardless. Maybe one or two years from the top flight. Thats it. Don't get your hopes up.

[fatshaft]

How come the other clubs are now being given until the 13th? Haven't they had long enough to decide?

there is another (bigoted) factor to take into account here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... newco.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A misconception gained currency this week that the Scottish Football League had fixed next Thursday as the day upon which the Rangers newco’s fate would be determined, either as a parachuted entry into the first division or through the third and lowest tier.

“Do you seriously think we would choose the 12th of July as the day to relaunch Rangers?” one SFL luminary asked rhetorically, in an unsubtle reference to a date which – with its specific reference to Irish history – has been commemorated in more than one ballad from the Ibrox songbook over the years.

[Caro-Kann]

How come the other clubs are now being given until the 13th? Haven't they had long enough to decide?

there is another (bigoted) factor to take into account here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/footba ... newco.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A misconception gained currency this week that the Scottish Football League had fixed next Thursday as the day upon which the Rangers newco’s fate would be determined, either as a parachuted entry into the first division or through the third and lowest tier.

“Do you seriously think we would choose the 12th of July as the day to relaunch Rangers?” one SFL luminary asked rhetorically, in an unsubtle reference to a date which – with its specific reference to Irish history – has been commemorated in more than one ballad from the Ibrox songbook over the years.

But isn't every day the 12th of July to Rangers fans? Just using this particular smilie for its appropriate name!

[Caro-Kann]

This was put out by Clyde last night prior to the SFL meeting on Friday.
Quite explosive stuff, seems to have been a bad move on Regan and Doncasters part to try to bully the Bully Wee!

The board of Clyde Football Club met last night to consider how it might approach the resolutions (see below) to be voted on at the SFL meeting on Friday 13th July. This update is to inform our owners and supporters and hopefully explain some of the complexities that face the club when carefully and objectively considering how we might vote. We hope that by being as clear as possible about the difficulties surrounding this situation that the people able to support the process act swiftly to do so.

The overwhelming reality is that we are being asked to make one of the most important decisions for Scottish Football in a vacuum devoid of factual information, that vacuum having been filled with unhelpful rhetoric and scaremongering by the chief executives of the SFA and SPL.

We therefore looked at what we were being asked to vote on, how it fitted with the principles of the sport, and what information we might need to inform a logical decision in context of the current reality.

It was clear that the resolutions marked a clear departure from all previous process and custom and practice when considering admitting a team to the SFL, albeit operating within the rules of the SFL. It was in that context which we considered the resolutions. In reality, the customary principles of sport were not at the forefront of the resolutions.

We first concluded that there was limited risk to the SFL from the 'Armageddon' theory, as depicted in the detailed presentation by Neil Doncaster and supported by Stewart Regan, which had prompted fears of cash flow loss to the SFL next season. We have obtained a copy of the Settlement Agreement signed up to by the SPL and the SFL in April 1998 - it is clear that the agreement is not ambiguous in this regard and there is no scope for the SPL to fail to meet the obligations to the SFL except by deliberately breaching the agreement. Neil Doncaster was unequivocal when he said that there would be no payment under the agreement and stressed that it was not the board of the SPL that made big decisions, it was the clubs themselves. We have concluded that it defies credibility that the SPL clubs would instruct the SPL to deliberately breach a legal agreement. To assist the SFL clubs to take decisions in the right manner then the external threat should be removed by the SPL clubs, confirming to the SFL that they have not and will not instruct the SPL to breach the Settlement Agreement.

Consideration was then given to Resolution 1 which we concluded required to be reworded to be explicit that entry was to SFL3. The reason for this is that once entered to the SFL in the manner proposed under Resolution 1, we understand that it is within the power of the Board of the SFL to place a club into any league of their choosing. We believe that, due to the intolerable pressure placed on the SFL board to date by external parties, this resolution should be explicit to avoid the Board coming under pressure from either the SFA or SPL in the event that Resolution 2 is rejected. It is also our opinion that Resolution 1 being explicit sits more appropriately with Resolution 2 which in itself is explicit about where any club might play.

In terms of Resolution 1, whether reworded or not, it seemed inconceivable to the Board of Clyde that absolutely no information whatsoever has been provided to support the resolution. This is clearly a matter of haste and again driven by an external agenda, perhaps because Sevco have not lodged an application to join the SFL then they have not submitted any information. Whilst we have accepted that this is being treated as a special case and we are willing to run with this, it simply was not possible to conclude that we could make any decision at this time. The matter is made worse because of the extent of uncertainty which hangs over Sevco. There is no need to prepare an exhaustive list of the issues as they are well publicised, however the extent of outstanding sanctions that may or may not be levied against a club which has yet to obtain SFA membership, together with the increasing number of possible commercial and legal challenges to the transactions to date simply presents a significant risk to the ability of the club to fulfil its fixtures in any league. Given that some of these matters are in the hands of the governing bodies it seems inexplicable that they are left hanging. We are clear that for the good of the game that we would want a swift and positive conclusion that would see Rangers Football Club taking part in the game again and we would wish to be able to support a Resolution that saw them entered to SFL3. However, until we receive enough information to inform such a decision then we are being pushed into a corner which would actually leave any club making a logical decision arrive at the conclusion that Resolution 1 should not be supported. The SFA could assist the process by transferring the SFA membership to Sevco prior to the Friday meeting if they have satisfied themselves of fit and proper tests and have carried out their own diligence on the viability of the club and the various legal challenges.

Resolution 2 suffers from the same issues as Resolution 1, in that no information of any sort about Sevco, not even whether it will obtain SFA membership, leaves no possibility of making a decision about entry to the SFL based on facts or logic. Clearly it is incumbent on all the governing bodies to make available all factual information they have available if they truly want this process to have any chance of being recovered from the current chaos. At the very least the business plan for Sevco and any other information that led the SPL clubs to arrive at a decision should be made available to the SFL clubs, and not with inappropriately short notice, although that point has as good as passed. Resolution 2 was where the challenge to sporting integrity arose. It was impossible to engage with this concept without continually bearing in mind that the SFA had already undermined the prospects for any integrity to be maintained by making it clear that failure to deal with the admission of a newco to SFL3 would be a dereliction of duty. In effect posting notice that no matter what decision is taken by the SFL clubs to administer their league, the SFA would not tolerate anything other than SFL 1, an equivalent point having been made by Neil Doncaster on behalf of the SPL clubs. The stated position of the SFA and SPL chief executives means that, whilst this club can have faith in David Longmuir to do all in his power to deliver a new combined structure that meets the objectives of Resolution 2, we have no faith in the parties that the new arrangements would be negotiated with. Their behaviour to date is evidence enough for us. We should not be disingenuous on our own position in terms of the question of trading sporting integrity for transformational change to the way the game is governed that is posed by Resolution 2. We have said previously that there would be no winners and that compromise would be required at some point. With this in mind, had we worked through this process and seen positive collaborative behaviour from the leaders of the SFA and SPL and we were challenged with backing Resolution 2 in exchange for revolutionary change that would truly benefit the game as a whole, then we would have engaged with that. As it stands, we have no information on the proposals other than that distributed in advance of the meeting last week and no confidence in the parties that will control the process outside of the SFL. As such we would vote no to Resolution 2.

Resolution 3, as many have pointed out this resolution seems presumptuous as no invitation has been issued from the SPL to either club. Again, this arises because of the external pressures, the haste and the failure of other bodies to complete their own processes. As things stand, whilst Sevco/Newco was not voted into the SPL, it seems that the SPL still has 12 members based on the reported voting at the SPL meeting last week, albeit one of whom is in liquidation. It seems to make more sense that the SPL complete their processes and make the appropriate invitation for a club to join the SPL. We would seek to support whichever of our member clubs are invited to join the SPL to make that move, however, at the moment there is no certainty that Sevco will be entered into the SFL and the SFL should not risk leaving itself short of a team.

In summary, the complete absence of information on Sevco Scotland Ltd renders it impossible to vote with any logic in favour of any of the Resolutions. The default in these circumstances would unfortunately be to vote against. We hope and trust that this unacceptable situation will be resolved swiftly and will allow Clyde Football Club to support Resolution 1 from an informed position and will see Rangers Football Club playing in SFL3. We see Resolution 2 as a matter of trust and it would take a change of personnel and attitude for us to be confident that David Longmuir would be entering discussions with a group of people committed to a collaborative process in a spirit of genuine partnership.

In the current circumstances our only decision could be to vote against Resolution 2. Subject to a satisfactory outcome on Resolution 1 we would support Resolution 3.

The three resolutions presented to the club are as follows:-

(i) That the Scottish Football League Members agree to admit Sevco Scotland Limited as an Associate Member and agrees to permit Rangers F.C. to play in the League during Season 2012/13.

(ii) That the Scottish Football League Members direct the Board of Management of The Scottish Football League (the “Board”) to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the Third Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13 unless the Board shall have to its satisfaction negotiated and reached agreement with The Scottish Premier League and The Scottish Football Association on a series of measures which the Board shall consider to be in the best interests of the game, how it is structured, how it is governed and how it is financed, whereupon the Board shall be authorised to provide that Rangers F.C. shall play in the First Division of the Scottish Football League during Season 2012/13.

(iii) That the Scottish Football League Members in terms of Rule 12 approve the resignation of either Dundee F.C. or Dunfermline Athletic F.C., whichever shall be admitted to join the Scottish Premier League for Season 2012/13, such resignation to take effect as at the date of admission of such club to the Scottish Premier League, notwithstanding that the requisite notice under Rule 12 shall not have been given.Details of the series of measures referred to at (ii) above shall be made available to the Members in advance of the meeting and an opportunity for full discussion of those measures will be given prior to the proposals being put to the meeting.

Scottish Football Administration Key :-
Regan = SFA
Doncaster = SPL
Longmuir = SFL

[Worthy4England]

Indeed, the standpoint they've taken has been quite bizarre viewed as a "non-interested party" this side of the border.

There's nothing I've seen reported that would make me vote for what they (Regan and Doncaster) wanted, if it meant cutting my nose off to spite my face. What they should've done is present the facts and leave the Clubs to make up their own mind. What they seem to have done is present a fait accompli. It actually comes across to me more as "self interest" than "clubs interest".

[Salford Trotter]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18813407" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
it's looking increasingly like Div 3 but we'll find out one way or the other later today

[FaninOz]

What a total shambles Scottish football is in, the Club's should now stand up and be counted. Vote all their "leaders" out of their jobs and vote Rangers (Sevco Scotland Ltd) out of the league all together. The sport has to be bigger than one team and the Club's must not fall for the balckmail that is beiing pushed at them.

Sporting integrity MUST come first otherwise football in Scotland is dead!!

Already many of the Club's in Scotland get pitiful crowds, much less than 1,000 per game and if sporting integrity is lost I can see many of those few walking away from the game altogether leaving empty grounds and many red faces. Sport belongs to the people and not to the rich few who run the game as a business, the EPL needs to take great note of what is happening in Scotland as it is only a matter of time before the same thing happens in England. Portsmouth is only the tip of the iceberg that is built on greed and corruption.

[Bruce Rioja]

In principle I agree, FiO. The real question remains though, can Scottish football afford to hold such principles?

[Puskas]

In principle I agree, FiO. The real question remains though, can Scottish football afford to hold such principles?

Alternatively, can it afford to not hold them?

If it doesn't, and the mooted fan boycott goes ahead, what then?

Even if it limps on, with the Sky money, won't it be seen as tainted?

[Bruce Rioja]

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18813407" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Little Green Man]

So that's the new club voted into SFL3. Took quite a bit of time but I guess if you've travelled from Stranraer or Peterhead you'd want a spot of lunch before getting round to the business in hand.

[hibee_wanderer]

Not been an easy decision to make. I'm a Wanderer living in Edinburgh and working for Hibernian. The loss of revenue for the clubs involved will be HUGE, but in the case of Hibs, they took their fans views on board in making the SPL decision, the boycott which would have occurred had we voted in fovour would have crippled up. Season ticket sales were down 47% until a decision was made, thankfully they're being renewed now!
Rangers would not have survived in the top flight, nor Div 1, with the resources they have, the transfer embargo etc etc. Now they can rebuild, regroup, and work for their achievements, hopefully in a legal manner this time!

[Relentless09]

It doesn't matter that their in League 3, they still walk through each of the leagues and come back to the SPL. As a Rangers supporter but more of a sympathiser it's probably better there in Division 3 and a lot of Rangers fans agree