topcat

Peterhead and Arbroath have weighed up the 'carrot' dangled yesterday in the form of league reconstruction - if sevco are allowed into SFL1 - and have rejected it in statements made this morning. So far that's 15 against them in SFL1 and 3 for - looks like their best option will be in SFL3 next season if (and by the look of it a big if) they even get allowed to play at all.

A good statement today from Clyde FC about the unfolding stitch-up Club Statement: SFL Special General Meeting Tue, 10th Jul 2012 6:17pm 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.

I'm quite nonplussed about all the media/SFA/rangers led nonsense about 'financial armaggeddon' and 'meltdown' - on the face of it my club (in SFL1) would be denied just £60k payment so would cut its' cloth to suit as many clubs already have - we already have a wage structure in the region of just £300-600 per week and have lived within our means since we nearly went t*ts up in '97 (round about the same time as NUFC). For instance last year our club needed to raise £100k and did so within a few weeks via additional sponsorship so the £60k figure certainly won't be a ballbuster. It might though have a bigger effect on SFL3 clubs with crumbling infrastructure and unmanageable debts - the kind of debts that could be wiped out if the blue filth spend a year in their division and they get a few home games in against them. With other wee diddy teams like us who've lived within our means for decades, the prospect of having one team circumvent the rules, fail to pay tax and NI, rack up £135m of losses and walk out of it with a debt free club parachuted into SFL1 (making our league a bit of a pointless season) is simply not acceptable.

posted by someone else up here: SFL New Club Application 2012 On Friday 13th 2012 the SFL, under pressure from the SFA and SPL will vote to admit a new club to the League. Listed below are clubs who may have applied, but only one is actually being considered. We all know which one , But Why? Previous Applicants Edinburgh City FC Formed: 1966 Stadium Capacity: 16,500 Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Spartans FC Formed: 1951 Stadium Capacity: Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Cove Rangers FC Formed: 1922 Stadium Capacity: 2500 Current League: Highland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Preston Athletic FC Formed: 1945 Stadium Capacity: 4000 Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Huntly FC Formed: 1928 Stadium Capacity: 4500 Current League: Highland League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Gala Fairydean Formed: Stadium Capacity: 2000 Current League: East of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Whitehill Welfare FC Formed: 1953 Stadium Capacity: 4000 Current League: East Of Scotland Football League 3 Years Accounts: Yes Other Applicants Sevco Formed: A month ago Stadium Capacity: Where's the deeds? Current League: None, not actually a football club yet. 3 Years Accounts: No, formed a month ago. Falsely claim to be a continuation of a club which abandoned £134 million of debt.

Nothing like an egg sandwich and chicken satay skewer to remove the bad tatste of a stitch up - somehow before Friday they will cobble together a total league reconstruction plan that the 8 on the SFL board will find agreeable within the space of a few days - wonder how many of the 8 representatives have shares in the team formerly known as ... ...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.

Quote from the Sevco manager tonight - far from the 13 players I alluded to in a previous post it would seem they only have enough for a 5-a-side team (plus sub) "We have a transfer embargo hanging over us but how can I operate with a transfer embargo when I only have six players? "It's impossible and it's just madness. "I have in the region of six first team players at pre-season training right now, two of whom were regulars last season in the SPL. "We need to bring in the region of 10, 12 or even 14 players. "I reckon since January we have lost close to 21 players. "We have to start rebuilding and to do that we'll have a better chance in SFL3." They've also moved the vote forward to Tuesday next week - hopefully common sense will prevail.

That's actually one of our songs - our satirical response to having to live in the shadow of these bigots in this city - a few words are wrong and these have been edited and it was essentially our take on why they always sing about queen/pope/IRA/UVF etc at the football Hello Hello How do you do We hate the boys in royal blue We hate the boys in emerald green So fuck your Pope and fuck your Queen We also do a rather neat little ditty regarding the fair Mary I know a lassie a bonnie bonnie lassie she's as tight as the paper on the wall she's got legs like a spider i'd love tae fkin ride her Mary fae Maryhill (there is a second verse about her ample bosoms falling out her top (where we pair jumper & hump her - but not many people know that old verse!) We're actually a harmless non-sectarian bunch so please don't factor our old song into a hatefest/bigot debate.

The team formerly known as Rangers are now defunct. That is a fact. They might have a stadium and some assets but at the moment they don't have an SFA registration, they don't have a league and they only have (if reports are to be believed) 13 players of whom many are young boys from reserves/under18. They are without any pre-season games to play as both Southampton and the organisers of their German tour have pulled the plug (they still owe over £60k to the oprganisers of their last pre-season tour). They are now officially a "diddy" team and our SFL chairmen have the chance next week to take one of 4 options: 1. put them div 1 2. put them in div 2 3 put them in div 3 4. refuse their application for div 3 It's quite clear from statements made by thoise in charge of the game up here that if the chairmen select options 3 or 4 above then they will push the nuclear option and put them in SFL1 anyway. All three men (Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir of the the SFA, SPL and SFL respectively) now have positions which are simply untenable with Regan stating yesterday that there would be "social unrest" if Rangers (note neat use of the old team name) were notr allowed to circumvent the rules and get into SFL1. With 4 weeks to go to the start of the season there's really no end in sight to the mess and corruption in the game up here.

has got to be the 3rd division - there is undue pressure being put on the 30 SFL clubs to lever them into the 1st division but hopefully us smaller "diddy" teams (as hun fans used to call us) will do what has to be done to make sure they get in on the bottom rung hopefully though they'll just piss off into oblivion and take their sectarian nonsense with them

Good interview on the radio today from Turnbull Hutton (Raith Rovers chairman). http://soundcloud.com/celticresearch/turnbull-hutton/s-x6eb5 Clyde FC have also put out a rather verbose NO today. As for £5k wages suggested, it may be enlightening for you to know that in SFL3 both East Stirling and Clyde pay about a tenner for the young players (+ travelling expenses) - while in SFL1 a wage of about £1.5k would be top whack for any club

it's about £3m to win the SPL, and about £2.2m for second place - the rest of the clubs get £800k - £200k (ish) in a formula devised and rammed through by both Rangers and Celtic in the rigged 11-1 voting system in the SPL - they've bled the game dry and ensured they get the most money, the CL places year-on-year to the detriment of all other member clubs and now one of them wants our sympathy and understanding.

correct!

Article in the Glasgow Herald this morning had a rather disturbing statement. "Charles Green last night submitted the paperwork required for the SFA to process the application by a newco Rangers for membership status, writes Richard Wilson. The documents will be studied on Monday, with the application itself not officially adjudicated on until after the club has been granted a league place." Seems to be another bending of the rules - i.e. here's a berth in SFL1/3 even though you're not yet officially a member.

Scottish snub is cos no one is buying tickets for the Hampden football - they've just given 30k free tickets away to schools and have realised too late that another planned 170k free tickets to schools won't happen as we're shut for the summer! OR none of the Scottish players were good enough!

a good read indeed - as I said I wouldn't know where to start with that (probably powerpoint full of bullet points) but interesting to see it came from Longmuir as I initially thought it had been written by one of my first year (year 8) pupils!

Hamilton chairman becomes the 4th to speaak out - bit worried about the lack of leadership from my own club: Les Gray (Accies chairman) "My personal view is that clubs in the First Division would never vote for Rangers to be admitted. “Morally, for reasons of football integrity, I think they should have to apply for entry to the Third Division. “I have deliberately not spoken to anybody about this because, to be honest, I’m sick hearing about it. But the bottom line is that there is no mechanism for Rangers to be admitted into the First Division. “Something would have to be changed, which would be a radical alteration requiring a percentage of the member clubs, who would then have to vote on it in a short space of time. That would then have to be put to the other member clubs within the SFL"

Here's the document sent to the "diddy" teams in the SFL in an attempt to persuade them to accept Rangers into SFL1 (lifted from the STV website). Unsure who sent it (if it internal SFL mail) but there are so many things wrong with it I really wouldn't know where to start. The proposal to SFL clubs, titled "Your Game, Your Club, Your Future" WHY DOES RESISTANCE TO CHANGE IN FOOTBALL EXIST? •Fear of the unknown •Lack of involvement •Lack of information •Threat to power, or status •No perceived benefits •Fear of failure •Unless behaviour changes, nothing changes UNDERSTANDING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE •Perceptions of being “worse off” •If the reasons for change are not clear •If implementation plans are not clear •If there is no clear “link” with your own objectives •If a change is seen as a threat to your long term security or well being WE THEREFORE NEED SOME CLEAR COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES FOR THE SFL •Logical and positive communication to eliminate doubt, threat and insecurity •Fully explained in terms of short and long term benefits to you and the organisation •Not left to the last minute •Involving you at an early stage •And seen in the context of a wider strategic plan CURRENT REALITY •Rangers have no where to go •SPL Clubs have indicated their voting intentions •SFA wish to see a solution in the interests of the game •Moral/sporting question vs financial collapse •Are The SFL are in a position to accommodate a solution? WE HAVE CONSIDERED FIVE SCENARIOS 1.Rangers stay in SPL 2.Rangers to Third Division 3.Rangers to First Division 4.Rangers to SPL2 5.Rangers terminated or suspended 1 . RANGERS STAY IN SPL •Not an option •SPL clubs have indicated no 2. RANGERS TO THIRD DIVISION •Takes approximately £16 million out of the game •Commercial partners walk away and seek compensation •The settlement agreement becomes a major risk •The sporting opportunity is quashed for other clubs 3. RANGERS TO FIRST DIVISION •Reduces SPL income by approximately 30% •Balances short term need for redemption with a least worst case financial scenario •It is financially possible to recover from this scenario 4. RANGERS TO SPL2 •Currently not supported by the SFA •Creates a bigger divide •Leads to some short term commercial losses •A legal challenge could paralyse the game •The overall pot would be much less than anticipated 5. RANGERS TERMINATED OR SUSPENDED •Complete financial meltdown •Settlement agreement is obliterated •Fans are lost to the game forever •The game survives but where? SO WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER? •Rangers in the IRN-BRU First Division this coming season •A one off fee to buy out the Rangers media value. (£1million) thus protecting the current contracts in place. IF WE AGREE THEN WE REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING •Play-Offs immediately, based on our format •A new distribution model with the settlement agreement value protected and future proofed •An amalgamation of the SPL & SFL •A more balanced governance model (as circulated) WHICH WILL DELIVER BENEFITS TO THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE •Immediate cash benefit for all 30 clubs! •Gate receipt uplift in Division 1 •Potential hospitality & advertising values increase •Sponsors receive added value through additional exposure •Scottish Government remain committed to our community strategy •SFL has more influence at the top table •Play-Offs restore the sporting meritocracy and deliver additional value AND BENEFITS TO SCOTTISH FOOTBALL •A unified plan presented to the Scottish footballing public which offers real possibilities for the game •Keeps all 42 clubs together avoiding a divisive SPL2 split •Deals with the need for sporting integrity with regard to Newco •Delivers innovation in the form of a single league, Play-Offs and a pyramid plan •Delivers new value for the game •Potentially narrows the financial gap between Scottish Premier League & Scottish League •Shows leadership for the game in Scotland •Allows fans to engage in the bigger picture •A positive media outcome

Agreed. And where is the head of the SFA while double dealing/bribery are happening just now and the game up here is going down the toilet to save the gers? "I am on annual leave w/c 25th June, then out of the country on business on 2nd July. I will return to the office on Tuesday, 3rd July. In my absence, please contact Sandra Buchanan (0141 616 6004) or sandra.buchanan@scottishfa.co.uk"

I know mate - it's an internet message board so am always up for the banter so don't take anything too seriously. I'm not entirely disagreeing with LM and others especially in some of the wee towns dotted about as there is a fair bit of anti-English sentiment/hangover form 70s/80s usually in the form of wicker man type behaviour as they don't get out much! - mainly from the Thatcher days (Poll Tax), non-stop mentions of 1966 and all the memories of getting pumped by England at Wembley (I remember the 5-1 game especially and that daft rangers keeper kennedy who let one in and then swung on the fkin post - still rankles) but to be fair most of the yak is pantomime stuff - if it isn't it should be tackled head-on.

I'm a teacher mate and hating the English is not part of our curriculum - I must protest at that statement! Any teacher implicated in such behaviour should simply be reported to the local authority or the GTCS who would instigate an investigation under COPAC (Code of Practice and Concuct). I regularly run football and cricket trips south of the border - been in the Gallowgate end 5 times (as well as a few trips to see Everton) in last 2 years and have been down to see your national team a few times in ODIs - buses are always packed for those trips.

News on the wires at the moment suggesting a closed-doors carve up on the go to save Rangers humiliation at the vote on 4th July - disgusting news if plans to parachute them into division 1 are true. BBC website: Rangers newco: Plans for club to enter Scottish Division One BBC Scotland has learned of plans being put in place that would allow Rangers to move directly into Scottish Division One in the coming season. Rangers FC plc are soon to be liquidated and Charles Green's consortium are reforming the club. But Green's Rangers newco has not gained support to replace the old club in the Scottish Premier League. And senior Scottish football figures are proposing that Rangers start season 2012/13 in the second tier. There are also plans in place for a new organisation to be called 'The Scottish Professional Football League' to become effective in 12 months' time. The main points of the proposals are: Rangers are to be relegated with immediate effect and be replaced in the SPL by Dundee. Television rights for Rangers matches in Scottish Football League Division One are to be bought by the SPL for £1m. The SPL and SFL will merge into one body at the start of season 2013/14. Play-offs between the top two divisions will be introduced in time for the coming season There will be an increase in the parachute payments made to clubs relegated from the SPL. Changes will be made to the distribution model for clubs in the top two tiers with teams in the lower leagues earning a similar amount to the current set-up. A new pyramid system will become effective from season 2014/15 that will allow a potential place in the new league format for a team from either the Highland league or newly-created 'Lowland League'. Rangers newco acceptance into the Scottish FA would only be approved if they accept responsibility for the football debts and fines incurred by the pervious club along with their waiving of rights to a legal challenge. It is understood Rangers chief executive Green has been "briefed" by Hibernian chairman Rod Petrie on the plans to gain their approval. All these changes have to be approved by SPL and SFL clubs over the next few days.

Third Lanark went tits up for just £43,000 in 1967 (what fraction of Cisse's weekly wage is that?!!) - I played for their reincarnated amateur team at Cathkin Park 4 years ago ... I moved on to a better team but it was good to see that the 3rds won division 1 of the Greater Glasgow Premier AFL this season after 2 successive promotions http://www.greaterglasgow.co.uk/division_1.htm Rangers situation is quite unlike that which unfolded at Cathkin between 1964-67.

nothing will change apart from a new name/players/maybe a venue - they will still be supported by some decent peope but sadly these are vastly outnumbered by the filth element (the other side of the OF divide are no different either) If anyone wants a valuable insight into the sectarian bile we have to put up with up here then look no further than this thread on one of their websites. It has it alll - from the pope and the queen, to flute bands and the outing of someone in a shop who had the temerity to have a bit of banter. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=223562 It's entirely NSFW due to language but every time we stumble upon something like this it reinforces our choice from an early age to support Glasgow's third team.

They are quite literally dead in the fukkin water tomorrow - only a handful of players have transferred over their contracts to the new company - so a game of 2-a-side at pre-season training tomorrow when they have to report back! Add into the mix that the first wages from Mr Green are due to be paid (but will not be paid on time) and it's all over bar the shouting. Tenner bet on Rangers being out of football for at least a year is looking a sure thing.

with the h*ns now with no chance of remaining in the SPL its now over to the chairmen of SFL Division 1 to say 'no' as well - maybe the h*ns will do the decent thing for once and just go down to the 3rd division and save any further fukkin hassle.