Rangers To Go into Scottish 3rd Division

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
Maybe about the bigotry, but you didnt seriously expect the owner of a club thats been ripped apart to just sit and say "Yeah this is good, I like it a lot."
No but he didn't say anything close to as mild mannered comment as that did he? He went and made an incredibly ignorant comment about bigotry, when he's only been in Scotland for a few months. Everyone knows it wasn't anything to do with bigotry. Laughable.
 

davidar

Member
Nov 20, 2009
170
0
0
46
The history of the club has been transferred, Hence why the license has taken so long to be agreed as the SPL are trying to pursue 5 titles from Rangers, - Even though they are yet to be found guilty of any wrong doing.
The history has NOT been transferred at all. History for a liquidated club in Britain cannot be bought by a new club. If this was the case as well then why is that area of the media - outside Scotland that is - are saying that The Rangers have won their first ever match when they played Brechin?

Green has bought the assets of the club ONLY and that is it. If Sevco want the history of the old club then they should be made to pay the debts of the old club. The new club cannot buy the stadium, training ground, players contracts, history for ONLY £5.5m and expect to have none of the debt. The assets have been bought only. History cannot be bought.

The licence is taking so long because of that **** Green dragging it out. IF the titles were to be stripped then they will be stripped from the OLD club and not the new one because the new club has only won one match in their short history.

Also as per your comment regarding spending within your means I done some checks regarding transfer history from 2001 up until 2011 last season on both clubs.

Celtic Spent A Total of: 76.8million, Receiving around: 49.6mil and totalling a spend of £27million.
Rangers spent A Total of: 92million, Receiving around: 73.82 and totalling a spend of £18.8 million

So if the transfers a totally accurate then Celtic spent more money than Rangers over the years so why should any titles be stripped.
Where did I mention anything about spending within the clubs means? If you're meaning my second comments about teams looking to their youth then I was saying that as a positive thing for Scottish football instead of clubs relying on buying or loaning in players. If a lot of clubs are saying they will have to tighten their purse strings then it can be a chance for them to rely on their youth setup which can be a good thing for the teams in Scotland and also the national team as more focus will be put on the youth.

Celtic have spent more according to your figures (assuming they are correct) and yet they are STILL managing to repay their debts and have a debt of only £7m - reduced from about £9m I think it was. The old club of Rangers racked up massive amounts of debts including the EBT's that they used to pay certain players. Celtic are managing to live within their means and not overpay vast amounts and they are in control of their finances. The old club of Rangers were not hence the trouble that they had found themselves in.

If found guilty with the double contract issue then titles should be stripped because players were getting paid by an illegal means and the club was using it to their advantage. The issue of the double contract basically means that players weren't registered properly with the SFA. Players not registered properly with the SFA are classed as not registered players, so the club fielded those players illegally (just like FC Sion last year with their unregistered players). Those titles were won by cheating. The players themselves never cheated - the old club DID. That's why the titles should be stripped.

You think that if an athlete wins by cheating they should be allowed to keep their medals? No, and this is the same thing with the old club.

In my opinion as a rangers fan I think we should say we don't want the SPL getting any rights to our tv games and just give our games to BBC Alba as their trying to bleed the club dry and force alot of punishments yet still make money of us ?
You do know that the only punishments that have been given out is a £160,000 fine and a (recently given) transfer embargo don't you?

Maybe about the bigotry, but you didnt seriously expect the owner of a club thats been ripped apart to just sit and say "Yeah this is good, I like it a lot."
But who's fault is it that the old club has "been ripped apart"? They have no one to blame but themselves for the way things went with the old club and for Green to come out with the **** that he has done by basically saying that EVERYONE in Scotland has got an agenda against the club and it was partly driven by bigotry is beyond ridiculous.

He should look at the reasons on why they are where they are now instead of trying to blame everyone else.
 
Last edited:

AldoKemp-1

Member
Nov 28, 2008
3,302
0
0
29
The history has NOT been transferred at all. History for a liquidated club in Britain cannot be bought by a new club. If this was the case as well then why is that area of the media - outside Scotland that is - are saying that The Rangers have won their first ever match when they played Brechin?

Green has bought the assets of the club ONLY and that is it. If Sevco want the history of the old club then they should be made to pay the debts of the old club. The new club cannot buy the stadium, training ground, players contracts, history for ONLY £5.5m and expect to have none of the debt. The assets have been bought only. History cannot be bought.

The licence is taking so long because of that **** Green dragging it out. IF the titles were to be stripped then they will be stripped from the OLD club and not the new one because the new club has only won one match in their short history.



Where did I mention anything about spending within the clubs means? If you're meaning my second comments about teams looking to their youth then I was saying that as a positive thing for Scottish football instead of clubs relying on buying or loaning in players. If a lot of clubs are saying they will have to tighten their purse strings then it can be a chance for them to rely on their youth setup which can be a good thing for the teams in Scotland and also the national team as more focus will be put on the youth.

Celtic have spent more according to your figures (assuming they are correct) and yet they are STILL managing to repay their debts and have a debt of only £7m - reduced from about £9m I think it was. The old club of Rangers racked up massive amounts of debts including the EBT's that they used to pay certain players. Celtic are managing to live within their means and not overpay vast amounts and they are in control of their finances. The old club of Rangers were not hence the trouble that they had found themselves in.

If found guilty with the double contract issue then titles should be stripped because players were getting paid by an illegal means and the club was using it to their advantage. The issue of the double contract basically means that players weren't registered properly with the SFA. Players not registered properly with the SFA are classed as not registered players, so the club fielded those players illegally (just like FC Sion last year with their unregistered players). Those titles were won by cheating. The players themselves never cheated - the old club DID. That's why the titles should be stripped.

You think that if an athlete wins by cheating they should be allowed to keep their medals? No, and this is the same thing with the old club.



You do know that the only punishments that have been given out is a £160,000 fine and a (recently given) transfer embargo don't you?



But who's fault is it that the old club has "been ripped apart"? They have no one to blame but themselves for the way things went with the old club and for Green to come out with the **** that he has done by basically saying that EVERYONE in Scotland has got an agenda against the club and it was partly driven by bigotry is beyond ridiculous.

He should look at the reasons on why they are where they are now instead of trying to blame everyone else.
Ok... First of all if you read back on the posts rather than picking all my comments and "ASSUMING" that I was talking to you, I was clearing quoting things maxy67 said and not you, So "Where did I mention anything about spending within the clubs means?" you never as I wasn't speaking to you so don't start ranting when you haven't got an idea about who's talking to who ;)

2. Fair enough if I'm wrong about the history but i'm pretty certain is been taken with us.

3. No an athlete who has cheated shouldn't keep their medals IF PROVEN GUILTY, Rangers are yet to be proven guilty so therefore should not be punished with stripping titles until then!! (Again mentioned plenty of times in my posts you clearly haven't read just picked out points to argue against..

3. The only punishment given is a fine and transfer embargo ?? NO! How about being in the 3rd division ? Losing most of their top players due to this, Losing our place in europe. When Gretna became a new club did they have a transfer ban ? NO, Why Rangers then ? because we are a new club with no history apparently so why are we being made to take punishments such as a fine, transfer embargo & loss of TV rights that the SPL are gaining rather than the SFL because we are an SFL team not an SPL so why are they making money on us.

So a lot more punishments have been given than the 2 you mentioned, I wasn't even quoting or referring to ANYTHING you said in this thread at all until now, Start reading the posts before you comment.


P.s "Celtic have spent more according to your figures (assuming they are correct) and yet they are STILL managing to repay their debts and have a debt of only £7m - reduced from about £9m I think it was. The old club of Rangers racked up massive amounts of debts including the EBT's that they used to pay certain players. Celtic are managing to live within their means and not overpay vast amounts and they are in control of their finances. The old club of Rangers were not hence the trouble that they had found themselves in." - Actually if Celtic were a club living within their means then they wouldn't have any debt, because they would be spending the money they have available to them only there for ensuring they don't go into debt.
 
Last edited:

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Ok... First of all if you read back on the posts rather than picking all my comments and "ASSUMING" that I was talking to you, I was clearing quoting things maxy67 said and not you, So "Where did I mention anything about spending within the clubs means?" you never as I wasn't speaking to you so don't start ranting when you haven't got an idea about who's talking to who ;)

2. Fair enough if I'm wrong about the history but i'm pretty certain is been taken with us.

3. No an athlete who has cheated shouldn't keep their medals IF PROVEN GUILTY, Rangers are yet to be proven guilty so therefore should not be punished with stripping titles until then!! (Again mentioned plenty of times in my posts you clearly haven't read just picked out points to argue against..

3. The only punishment given is a fine and transfer embargo ?? NO! How about being in the 3rd division ? Losing most of their top players due to this, Losing our place in europe. When Gretna became a new club did they have a transfer ban ? NO, Why Rangers then ? because we are a new club with no history apparently so why are we being made to take punishments such as a fine, transfer embargo & loss of TV rights that the SPL are gaining rather than the SFL because we are an SFL team not an SPL so why are they making money on us.

So a lot more punishments have been given than the 2 you mentioned, I wasn't even quoting or referring to ANYTHING you said in this thread at all until now, Start reading the posts before you comment.

Last time i checked they had not legally or officially been divested of their history.
 

juventus1980

Member
Nov 15, 2011
149
0
0
3. No an athlete who has cheated shouldn't keep their medals IF PROVEN GUILTY, Rangers are yet to be proven guilty so therefore should not be punished with stripping titles until then!! (Again mentioned plenty of times in my posts you clearly haven't read just picked out points to argue against..

3. The only punishment given is a fine and transfer embargo ?? NO! How about being in the 3rd division ? Losing most of their top players due to this, Losing our place in europe. When Gretna became a new club did they have a transfer ban ? NO, Why Rangers then ? because we are a new club with no history apparently so why are we being made to take punishments such as a fine, transfer embargo & loss of TV rights that the SPL are gaining rather than the SFL because we are an SFL team not an SPL so why are they making money on us.
To put a balance on things since there's only one celtic fan speaking sense on here (davidar seems to be ranting a bit), and there seem to be several (I think your all rangers fans? or have a soft spot for them) I'll add something for arguments sake.

I read through the replies maxy67 gave you before and I've read various reports and articles on the web (so I'm not totally ignorant)... and it kinda seems like rather when rather than if. I'm sure there's a lot of pressure from FIFA and UFEA to make an example out of Rangers and punish them as much as possible (same happened with Juve) so I wouldn't be suprised if Rangers do get their titles stripped.

Being put in Division 3 wasn't the punishment, it's just the place a new club starts (at the bottom) this happened to fiorentina when they went bust like Rangers (except they were allowed into serie B after a season). All the side effects such as losing your players, is down to how badly the club is run- not a punishment. The punishment will be stripping you of your titles. As said before, hope your club takes it better than my club has this season.

Also can someone explain why Charles Green thinks the whole establishment of Scottish football (who sentanced rangers to division 3) is bigoted?
 
Last edited:

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
To put a balance on things since there's only one celtic fan speaking sense on here (davidar seems to be ranting a bit), and there seem to be several (I think your all rangers fans? or have a soft spot for them) I'll add something for arguments sake.

I read through the replies maxy67 gave you before and I've read various reports and articles on the web (so I'm not totally ignorant)... and it kinda seems like rather when rather than if. I'm sure there's a lot of pressure from FIFA and UFEA to make an example out of Rangers and punish them as much as possible (same happened with Juve) so I wouldn't be suprised if Rangers do get their titles stripped.

Being put in Division 3 wasn't the punishment, it's just the place a new club starts (at the bottom) this happened to fiorentina when they went bust like Rangers (except they were allowed into serie B after a season). All the side effects such as losing your players, is down to how badly the club is run- not a punishment. The punishment will be stripping you of your titles. As said before, hope your club takes it better than my club has this season.

Also can someone explain why Charles Green thinks the whole establishment of Scottish football (who sentanced rangers to division 3) is bigoted?
Think this nails it on the head. They havent lost the titles yet, but its highly likely they will lose some if not all.. Personally expect the last 8-10 years to be voided.

Charles Green is playing to the Rangers base, and he is in danger of really isolating Rangers within the game.
 

AldoKemp-1

Member
Nov 28, 2008
3,302
0
0
29
To put a balance on things since there's only one celtic fan speaking sense on here (davidar seems to be ranting a bit), and there seem to be several (I think your all rangers fans? or have a soft spot for them) I'll add something for arguments sake. Agreed, And I am a rangers fan

I read through the replies maxy67 gave you before and I've read various reports and articles on the web (so I'm not totally ignorant)... and it kinda seems like rather when rather than if. I'm sure there's a lot of pressure from FIFA and UFEA to make an example out of Rangers and punish them as much as possible (same happened with Juve) so I wouldn't be suprised if Rangers do get their titles stripped.

Being put in Division 3 wasn't the punishment, it's just the place a new club starts (at the bottom) this happened to fiorentina when they went bust like Rangers (except they were allowed into serie B after a season). All the side effects such as losing your players, is down to how badly the club is run- not a punishment. The punishment will be stripping you of your titles. As said before, hope your club takes it better than my club has this season.

Division 3 was a punishment the way the SPL and SFA are going about it all, Yes being put in division 3 is were we should be and what is deserved after all we are a new club I agree but the SPL still trying to take money for tv rights for Rangers, Fining Us, and putting a transfer embargo on us (which was put on the oldco!) is Wrong.

Everyone voted for Rangers to be put into 3rd division to keep the integrity of Scottish football yet they still want to make money from that very club, Where is the integrity there ? IMO that's worse because they're using the club they chose to relegate to earn money.


Also can someone explain why Charles Green thinks the whole establishment of Scottish football (who sentanced rangers to division 3) is bigoted?
Charles Green never sentenced Rangers into the 3rd division, He saved the club and the CVA proposal was rejected meaning the HMRC and other clubs & so on lose all money owed to them by Rangers so their loss IMO. Not any sane person would have bought the club and paid off the debts that Rangers had as they would be aswell giving their money away. David Murray sentenced Rangers to division 3! and As Mike said Green is just playing into the Rangers fans hands to get everyone on his side that isn't already.
 

davidar

Member
Nov 20, 2009
170
0
0
46
Ok... First of all if you read back on the posts rather than picking all my comments and "ASSUMING" that I was talking to you, I was clearing quoting things maxy67 said and not you, So "Where did I mention anything about spending within the clubs means?" you never as I wasn't speaking to you so don't start ranting when you haven't got an idea about who's talking to who ;)
Well, why don't you address the person you're speaking to rather than lumping it all into one quote ie mine :D And don't twist it as a rant as it wasn't. It's called a discussion which is what I thought we were doing.

2. Fair enough if I'm wrong about the history but i'm pretty certain is been taken with us.
I'm sorry, mate, but it's not been transferred over. Like I say, the history doesn't automatically go over and like I say the only thing that has been acquired by Green for the new club are Ibrox, Murray Park and the players contracts.

3. No an athlete who has cheated shouldn't keep their medals IF PROVEN GUILTY, Rangers are yet to be proven guilty so therefore should not be punished with stripping titles until then!! (Again mentioned plenty of times in my posts you clearly haven't read just picked out points to argue against.
I have read what you have said and I KNOW that you keep saying about nothing should happen unless proven guilty but it's only a matter of time before they ARE found guilty. All that is happening is that the inevitable is being delayed. An athlete won't be stripped unless it's proven of course and the exact same thing will happen with the old club as well. And if/when they are proven guilty they should have their titles stripped, which is what I am talking about if you read my post properly.

3. The only punishment given is a fine and transfer embargo ?? NO! How about being in the 3rd division ? Losing most of their top players due to this, Losing our place in europe. When Gretna became a new club did they have a transfer ban ? NO, Why Rangers then ? because we are a new club with no history apparently so why are we being made to take punishments such as a fine, transfer embargo & loss of TV rights that the SPL are gaining rather than the SFL because we are an SFL team not an SPL so why are they making money on us.

So a lot more punishments have been given than the 2 you mentioned, I wasn't even quoting or referring to ANYTHING you said in this thread at all until now, Start reading the posts before you comment.
1) Being in the third division is NOT a punishment for a NEW club which this is, especially a NEW club that has had no audited accounts for at least three years (which, by the way, is what's actually required for every single club wanting to apply for membership into the SFL). Sevco get voted into Division 3 and they don't have any audited accounts whereas teams like Spartans and Cover Rangers have been trying to get into Division 3 and they HAVE audited accounts, so who's REALLY being punished here?

2) How was the club punished when the players CHOSE to go somewhere else? The players were given the choice to play for the new club or terminate their contracts. They didn't want to play for a new club playing in Division 3 so they chose to go to other clubs.

3) You "lost" your place in Europe because Rangers didn't submit audited accounts for the previous year which is a UEFA requirement. Rangers applied for a European licence but were denied due to this and also for being in administration. Even if Rangers DID submit the required accounts while in administration they still wouldn't have gotten a European licence as they would have had to prove that they owed no money to other clubs, to its employees, and to HM Revenue and Customs. If you were given permission to play in Europe BEFORE going into administration then that would have been different.

4) Gretna didn't bring the game into disrepute by not paying £13m in taxes for their previous season. Rangers did and that is why they were given the £160,000 fine (which will probably not even get paid) and transfer embargo (which Rangers contested by going to the Court of Session which they were NOT allowed to do either under FIFA rulings). Green, agreeing to take partial punishment for the old club and to get the SFA licence, agreed to the transfer ban. I'm sure given the choice between that or taking on the £100m+ debt that the old club owe he's gotten off lightly. Especially as the transfer embargo doesn't start until September 1st.

5) What loss of TV rights are you losing? Sky have made a deal to show Sevco's games along with other games and a load of highlights so the new club isn't losing any money and the SPL AND SFL will make money as will the teams that Sevco play against as they will receive money from TV rights as well.

Scottish deal for Sky | Sky Sports

This is a first as well where a new deal has been made to show lower Scottish division league matches due to only one specific team entering the lower division. You think if one of the teams I mentioned before - Spartans or Cove Rangers - got into Division 3 instead of Sevco, a new deal would have been made to show their matches? I don't think so.

This is a win win situation for all the lower teams, including the new Sevco club.

So, really when you analyse it properly instead of playing the victim card, it's not a lot more punishments for a NEW club than I mentioned at all.

P.s "Celtic have spent more according to your figures (assuming they are correct) and yet they are STILL managing to repay their debts and have a debt of only £7m - reduced from about £9m I think it was. The old club of Rangers racked up massive amounts of debts including the EBT's that they used to pay certain players. Celtic are managing to live within their means and not overpay vast amounts and they are in control of their finances. The old club of Rangers were not hence the trouble that they had found themselves in." - Actually if Celtic were a club living within their means then they wouldn't have any debt, because they would be spending the money they have available to them only there for ensuring they don't go into debt.
They obviously ARE a club living within their means because they haven't let their finances get out of control. Living within means is just that - they aren't struggling to make ends meet and are managing to repay their debts, unlike a certain old club who are being liquidated for not paying theirs.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Well, why don't you address the person you're speaking to rather than lumping it all into one quote ie mine :D And don't twist it as a rant as it wasn't. It's called a discussion which is what I thought we were doing.



I'm sorry, mate, but it's not been transferred over. Like I say, the history doesn't automatically go over and like I say the only thing that has been acquired by Green for the new club are Ibrox, Murray Park and the players contracts.



I have read what you have said and I KNOW that you keep saying about nothing should happen unless proven guilty but it's only a matter of time before they ARE found guilty. All that is happening is that the inevitable is being delayed. An athlete won't be stripped unless it's proven of course and the exact same thing will happen with the old club as well. And if/when they are proven guilty they should have their titles stripped, which is what I am talking about if you read my post properly.



1) Being in the third division is NOT a punishment for a NEW club which this is, especially a NEW club that has had no audited accounts for at least three years (which, by the way, is what's actually required for every single club wanting to apply for membership into the SFL). Sevco get voted into Division 3 and they don't have any audited accounts whereas teams like Spartans and Cover Rangers have been trying to get into Division 3 and they HAVE audited accounts, so who's REALLY being punished here?

2) How was the club punished when the players CHOSE to go somewhere else? The players were given the choice to play for the new club or terminate their contracts. They didn't want to play for a new club playing in Division 3 so they chose to go to other clubs.

3) You "lost" your place in Europe because Rangers didn't submit audited accounts for the previous year which is a UEFA requirement. Rangers applied for a European licence but were denied due to this and also for being in administration. Even if Rangers DID submit the required accounts while in administration they still wouldn't have gotten a European licence as they would have had to prove that they owed no money to other clubs, to its employees, and to HM Revenue and Customs. If you were given permission to play in Europe BEFORE going into administration then that would have been different.

4) Gretna didn't bring the game into disrepute by not paying £13m in taxes for their previous season. Rangers did and that is why they were given the £160,000 fine (which will probably not even get paid) and transfer embargo (which Rangers contested by going to the Court of Session which they were NOT allowed to do either under FIFA rulings). Green, agreeing to take partial punishment for the old club and to get the SFA licence, agreed to the transfer ban. I'm sure given the choice between that or taking on the £100m+ debt that the old club owe he's gotten off lightly. Especially as the transfer embargo doesn't start until September 1st.

5) What loss of TV rights are you losing? Sky have made a deal to show Sevco's games along with other games and a load of highlights so the new club isn't losing any money and the SPL AND SFL will make money as will the teams that Sevco play against as they will receive money from TV rights as well.

Scottish deal for Sky | Sky Sports

This is a first as well where a new deal has been made to show lower Scottish division league matches due to only one specific team entering the lower division. You think if one of the teams I mentioned before - Spartans or Cove Rangers - got into Division 3 instead of Sevco, a new deal would have been made to show their matches? I don't think so.

This is a win win situation for all the lower teams, including the new Sevco club.

So, really when you analyse it properly instead of playing the victim card, it's not a lot more punishments for a NEW club than I mentioned at all.



They obviously ARE a club living within their means because they haven't let their finances get out of control. Living within means is just that - they aren't struggling to make ends meet and are managing to repay their debts, unlike a certain old club who are being liquidated for not paying theirs.
Tbh you are coming across as a rant, especially as he hasnt really played the victim card at all.
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
They obviously ARE a club living within their means because they haven't let their finances get out of control. Living within means is just that - they aren't struggling to make ends meet and are managing to repay their debts, unlike a certain old club who are being liquidated for not paying theirs.
Totally agree with that. That board is as tight as a ducks ****. There is debt, but it's very small and managable.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
Common sense has prevailed with the TV deal. Now if only they can restructure the system in future.
 

maxy67

Member
Aug 13, 2011
1,436
0
0
29
Common sense has prevailed with the TV deal. Now if only they can restructure the system in future.
That was quite the relief getting that deal, even if it is smaller than the old deal. The heirarchy needs a shake up for that to happen I believe.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
That was quite the relief getting that deal, even if it is smaller than the old deal. The heirarchy needs a shake up for that to happen I believe.
Yup, while I agree about what needed to happened to Rangers, the reality is that the fallout would have been devastating for the clubs involved that aren't Celtic. A smaller deal is certainly better than no deal.
 

Kris

Member
Sep 17, 2005
11,006
0
36
32
Yup, while I agree about what needed to happened to Rangers, the reality is that the fallout would have been devastating for the clubs involved that aren't Celtic. A smaller deal is certainly better than no deal.
It only works out at a loss of 54,000 per season or something like that. Not the big apocalyptic disaster it was made out to be.
 

Mike.

Moderator
Staff member
Feb 15, 2009
31,891
31
48
It only works out at a loss of 54,000 per season or something like that. Not the big apocalyptic disaster it was made out to be.
original deal was going to be £80m over 5 years, over 32 clubs = £500,000 loss per season? Pretty significant loss, when you consider St' Mirrens turnover was £3.5m, unless i'm missing something? Genuine question.
 
Last edited:
Top