TheCollarette

Kai_Johansen Today, 02:47 PM That’s all it took, one season without Rangers and the SPL haemorrhaged spectators, money and sponsorship to such an extent that it effectively died. There will be much spin put on it, but the truth of the matter is, the SPL died without Rangers and our huge support. As a club and support we were constantly told the SPL had its most successful, competitive, enjoyable, open etc season in years, and the absence of Rangers had no impact on the SPL’s ongoing commercial value or its continued financial stability! Well, here we are, one season on without Rangers in top flight of Scottish football, and the SPL is no more. Having done everything possible to coerce 29 SFL clubs into a treacherous merger takeover to form the SPFL, it will I'm sure be this new unified body’s sole purpose to unite all 41 clubs against Rangers for the betterment of Scottish football. I know, you know and more importantly all the SPL chairmen know why league reconstruction was so vitally important right here and now. It was most certainly not for the betterment of our national game, just as the chairman of Annan FC what he thinks. It was, in my opinion rushed through to prevent impending SPL financial meltdown. The only way the SPL could regain control of Rangers, and its financial power was by a merger/takeover of the SFL, why else would the so called top flight clubs ever consider financial union with the 29 SFL clubs! With SPFL reconstruction now a 'fait accompli' and Rangers now safely back in the fold, what will it mean for Rangers, and our support? Not much in my opinion, the same protagonists will sit on the new SPFL board, Rangers will still have to climb up through the leagues, Rangers as a club will still be held to financial ransom, and the clubs out with the new SPFL Premiership will learn in time, that they will get heehaw from the new SPFL unified body? What league reconstruction does confirm in my opinion is that without Rangers top flight Scottish football would wither and die. Last season’s rancour and in many instances outright hatred by SPL member clubs towards Rangers, only goes to prove that envy, greed and bigotry put the very existence of the SPL, and a number of its member clubs survival in serious doubt. Like many thousands I turn up at Ibrox out of loyalty and passion for the club I truly love, the fact that we were playing 3rd division football had no effect on my allegiance to Rangers, or my continued attendance at Ibrox. Loyalty to our club, it’s what separates us from all the rest, and makes Ranger FC ‘simply the best’. Nor, will a name change from the SPL to SPFL render the last 18 months of Rangers hating any less acceptable or forgiveable, and it is with utter contempt that I note the passing of the SPL. I would also like to offer a salutary reminder to all within Scottish football’s new SPFL utopia that ‘we’re only here to see the Rangers’ forget that again at your peril! Ranger then, now and forever .....Here Here.......

Taken from various media outlets in regards to reconstruction. Once due diligence had been done, and lawyers from both sides had had their say, all 30 SFL clubs had to resign and apply to join the new organisation. "The SFL board is happy that this has now all been successfully concluded and our board was happy to sign up." Rangers chief executive Craig Mather said the "best bit of the day" was that his club now had full membership and voting rights, following its associate membership status with the SFL. "I'm very happy," he said. "It's been interesting but we've got there. We've always been active. We continue the road and...be humble." The new spfl board is made up as follows The SPFL's board comprises three members from the top-tier clubs, two from the second tier and one person representing the bottom 20 clubs. They are: Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen); Les Gray (Hamilton), Mike Mulraney (Alloa); and Bill Darroch (Stenhousemuir).

We Are The Rangers - YouTube ► 2:23► 2:23 www.youtube.com/w... May 19, 2012

Always have been alway will be ........http://youtu.be/KXIin-5RLqI

BT Sports: 38 Premier League football matches per season Sky Sports: 116 Premier League football matches per season BT has 18 first picks and Sky has 20. BT gets packages A and G, Sky gets the rest: Quote: Reminder of packages: Package A: 26 at Sat 12.45pm - 13 1st picks - 13 4th picks Package B: 16-18 at Sat 5.30pm; 6-7 at Sun 12pm or 1.30pm/2.05pm; 2-3 Bank hols - 22 3rd picks - 4 5th picks Package C: 26 at Sun 1.30pm/2.05pm - 13 2nd picks - 13 3rd picks Package D: 26 at Sun 4pm/4.10pm - 20 1st picks - 6 4th picks Package E: 18-22 at Mon 8pm; 4-8 at Sun 4pm/4.10pm or Sat 12.45pm - 12 2nd picks - 10 4th picks - 4 5th picks Package F: 12 at Sat 5.30pm - 8 2nd picks - 4 4th picks Package G: 10 Midweek and Bank hols; 2 at Sat 12.45pm - 5 1st picks - 5 2nd picks - 2 5th picks Club Quotas (in alphabetical package order): Maximum: 5, 5, 5, 5, 4, 2, 2 (Total = 28) Minimum: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 0, 0 (Total = 5) Pick totals: - 38 1st picks - 38 2nd picks - 35 3rd picks - 33 4th picks - 10 5th picks Sky have far more room with regards to maximum appearances per team and they have the flexibility to utilise 2nd picks in different timeslots so as not to use their quotas up... BT are very limited in what they'll be able to do - especially in a Europa League week as the teams playing Thursday are automatically moved to Sunday whether they're featuring in an already planned Sky live game or not. Also don't forget that BT will have an equal amount of the 'worst' games of the weekend as well and if I'm not mistaken they won't have a live game every round either, they'll fall short and have some weeks that need to be filled with other programming.

Is the new bt sport package really any different? Setanta 46 live epl games Espn 23 live epl games Bt sport 38 epl games All had scottish games, fa cup cup games etc. Setanta free on bt vision. Espn free on bt vision now bt sports free on bt vision if you take bb etc. Much the same product just different owner. Majority of setanta and espn subscribers also had sky sports . Bt sports with only 750, 000 tv subscribers might just be the same.

Hope this works Page 1 of 4 26 March 2012 Mr S. M. ReganChief Executive By email only: sandra.buchanan@scottishfa.co.uk Your Ref:Our Ref:E.Mail:Direct Dial:Direct Fax: SMR/SBRMN/262563-00001r.macneice@ashfords.co.uk0117 321 80710117 321 8021 Dear Sir Craig Whyte We refer to your letter dated 19 March 2012 addressed to Mr Fernandes. Please note this matter has been transferred to Mr Mac Neice and accordingly, please address all future correspondenceto him.In your letter of 18 March 2012 you assert that the Board of the Scottish FA is satisfied that it hasfulfilled its obligations regarding service of its letter of 7 March 2012 on our client. The Board'ssatisfaction misses the point.The SFA has a duty to ensure procedural fairness in its dealings. That duty includes therequirement to arrange and administer its internal proceedings in compliance with the general law.Minimum standards of procedural protection to participants include the obligation to fully and fairlyinform those subject to a complaint or disciplinary procedures of the precise nature of thecomplaint against them and to give them a proper opportunity to put their case to it. That dutyincludes the obligation to inform the subject of a complaint of the matters that are to be consideredincluding the evidence on which the governing body relies.In respect of this matter, the SFA to date has wholly failed to conduct itself in a manner thatdischarges its duty to act fairly and in accordance with the general law.By way of illustration despite corresponding with others on this matter since apparently October last year you chose only to correspond directly with our client by your letter of 9 March 2012following the SFA Board's decision that our client was not a fit and proper person by reference tothe terms of Article 10. In that letter you informed our client of the following:-1.That the SFA had not received a substantive response from either Rangers FC or thatClub's former lawyers to correspondence sent to those parties by the SFA.2.That following Rangers FC entering into administration the SFA had established whatyou refer to as an Independent Committee to " determine whether or not (our client was) Page 2 of 4 a fit and proper person to hold a position within Association Football in accordance witharticle 10 of the Scottish FA's Articles of Association ".3.That the Independent Committee had published a report which had been considered " indetail " by the Board of the SFA at their meeting held on 8 March 2012.4.That the Independent Committee's Report indicated the Committee's opinion that therewas what you term prima facie evidence that our client was not a fit and proper personwithin the meaning of Article 10.2.5.That the Committee did not wish to make a determination on the issue and consideredthat a determination should be made by the Scottish FA Board only after what youdescribe as " due process ".On the basis of that chronology we make the following comments:-1.You have elected to conduct this investigation without any reference to our client nor did you invite our client to comment or to assist you in November or December lastyear.2.That is despite the fact that following the BBC's transmission of a television programme,that we understand prompted your investigation, you and Mr Campbell Ogilvie attendeda private dinner with our client and Ali Russell during which matters relating to RangersFC were discussed including the financial difficulties being experienced by the Club. Weare instructed that during the dinner you told Mr Whyte he had been open with the SFAand you expressed your appreciation of that openness telling our client that the SFAwas there to help. In respect of Mr Whyte's director disqualification, you indicated to Mr Whyte that the issue would not prevent our client from remaining involved with RangersFC. Our client specifically recalls that you indicated to him that he should not worryabout his previous disqualification as a director.3.Given these matters we consider that you have failed to properly separate theinvestigatory function into this matter from what you purport to be the Board's role inmaking a final determination not least in circumstances where it would appear that twomembers of the Board discussed this matter with our client during a private dinner andwould be likely to be called as witnesses in circumstances were Mr Whyte to be givenan opportunity of putting his case at a hearing. That is particularly the case given thatwhat we are instructed was said by you at that dinner appears to directly contradict your statement to the press on or about 8 March 2012 which we refer to later in this letter.4.You refer in your letter of 9 March 2012 to the requirement that a determination of thematter be made only after "due process". On any basis the SFA has failed to followeven basic or minimum standards of procedural protection in respect of our client.Instead the SFA has purported to commission an Independent Committee's Report, thecontent of which, it has determined, it will keep secret from our client. In circumstanceswhere the SFA Board has refused to disclose the content of that Report, the evidenceon which the Committee relied or even the terms of reference under which the Page 3 of 4 Committee operated the admission in your letter of 19 March that evidence waspresented to the Committee causes our client very considerable concern. Pleaseprovide a clear written explanation as to who gave evidence before or to theCommittee, the nature of that evidence and copies of all documents and other materialdisclosed to the Committee.5.In these circumstances the SFA Board has denied our client the opportunity of understanding the case that he has to meet, has refused to provide him with theevidence on which the SFA Board relies in asserting that our client is not a fit andproper person within the meaning of Article 10.2 and has instead chosen to publish it'sfinding that our client is not a fit and proper person in circumstances where he has beenafforded no opportunity of answering the case against him.6.The reference in the third paragraph of your letter of 9 March 2012, that theIndependent Committee " was of the opinion that there is prima facie evidence that youare not a fit and proper person " suggests that the matter has been pre-determined.That concern is confirmed when your statement published on 8 March 2012 atwww.telegraph.co.uk" Craig Whyte is not a fit and proper person to own Rangers saysScottish FA" is considered. That article referred specifically to a statement issued byyou which stated, amongst other things:-" Principally it is the belief of the Board taking into account the prima facie evidence presented today, that Mr Craig Whyte is not considered to be a fit and proper person to hold a position within association football ".7.That statement issued by you entirely undermines what you said in your letter of 9March and serves as clear evidence that the SFA Board had in fact already made adetermination on this issue at the time you wrote that letter which is entirely at odds andcontradicts your approach at the private dinner with our client late last year. It alsocontradicts what you say in your letter of 19 March 2012, that the Board will consider this issue on 5 April 2012. In fact the Board, as evidenced by your own statement, hadalready considered this issue, made a determination on it and published a statementsetting out the result of that determination.Next StepsFor the avoidance of doubt, our client wishes to be afforded the opportunity of answering theallegations which appear to have been made against him in the Independent Committee's Reportwhich the SFA Board has so far refused to disclose to him. In those circumstances we requireimmediate disclosure of the following:1.An entire copy of the Independent Committee's Report including the Committee's termsof reference,2.Details of the identity of those who gave evidence before the Committee and the natureand content of their evidence3.Copies of all statements, reports and other material placed before the Committee, Page 4 of 4 When replying we require the assurance of the SFA Board that conduct of the investigation andprogress of this matter moving forward will be undertaken by an individual at the SFA who will notform part of a determining panel nor be an individual who is likely to be called as a witness to giveevidence on any issues arising from this matter.Once we have been provided with full and proper disclosure of the SFA's case against our clientour client will be in a position to respond substantively to that case. For the avoidance of doubt thenumbered paragraphs in your letter of 9 March do not disclose a question or line of enquiry thatyou wish our client to address and are imprecise and unclear in terms of what written submissionsthe Board is expecting our client to make. You are effectively making our client respond to thosenumbered paragraphs in isolation of any disclosure of the case that our client has to meet in theform of the Independent Committee's Report or the evidence on which the Committee relied whenwriting it's report. That is on any basis procedurally unfair to our client and is prejudical to his rightand the SFA's obligation to provide a fair (you describe it as due) process.In any event there is likely to be considerable cross-over between this matter and the allegationsmade by the SFA and contained in its Notice of Complaint against our client. In respect of thatNotice of Complaint we have written to the SFA today and have, amongst other matters, indicatedthat both you and Mr Ogilvie are to be put on notice that you may be required to attend the hearingof the matter of the Notice of Complaint to give evidence. It is, in all of the circumstances,appropriate that the determination of whether or not our client is a fit a proper person within themeaning of Article 10.2 be dealt with in conjunction with the hearing of the Notice of Complaint inorder that evidence from that hearing can be available to both parties in respect of the fit andproper determination.Yours faithfully Ashfords LLP / 4

A bit more info on bt sport, Setanta and ESPN couldn't make UK footie TV work. How will BT Sport? By giving it all away? Um, let's take a look By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author Posted in Media, 10th May 2013 14:17 GMT Free whitepaper – The Total Economic Impact of IBM System z Having acquired the TV rights to top-flight sports for £736m, BT is to give much of it away to its broadband punters at no extra cost - or indeed to anyone who wants to pony up just a few quid a week. Last year, the telco shelled out millions for the rights to show 38 Premier league football matches live over a three-year period. Meanwhile, BSkyB paid £2.28bn for 116 games. Between them, that's 70 per cent more dosh than the last time the telly rights came up, a windfall for the top-drawer clubs. BT also acquired Premiership Rugby rights in 2012 and acquired ESPN's UK and Irish channels in February this year, giving it the rights to show footie from Germany, France, Italy and Brazil, among other sports - plus 176 matches from the Europa League, which is less of a football competition and more of an endurance test for reserve team squad players at mid-ranking European clubs. Recent winners include Shakhtar Donetsk and Zenit St Petersburg. The corporation said it will undercut arch-rival Sky in pubs, hotels and commercial premises. But the decision to show the material to paid-up subscribers with no additional fees is the oddest part of a complicated stack of tariffs and options, which were announced yesterday. BT Sport viewers will need fibre broadband and a YouView box to see the games in high definition. This HD option will cost an extra £3 a month, but BT will waive this fee for a year if one signs up before the start of August. For standard definition coverage, you'll have to make do with BT's broadband and Vision+ box, so long as you pay a tenner for an access card. But what if you're an early adopter and bought your own YouView box? Tough. BT says only its YouView boxes are eligible for the "free" BT Sport channel - you'll need to pay a tenner a month if you use YouView gear branded by someone else. BT YouView owners will also need to do a software upgrade. Daunted? You're forgiven. For non-BT internet subscribers, you can get BT Sport by paying £15 a month for HD transmissions via a suitable Sky box, or £12 for standard definition. There will also be an app for PCs, smartphones and fondleslabs. You won't be allowed to watch the matches in multiple rooms in your home, and if you have BT and Sky you can't work around this restriction. And the economics? BT is wading into an arena where Setanta, ITV Digital and ESPN have tried and failed. BT Sport says it's "all about broadband", which even if we take at face value, means it's spending big - on rights and marketing - to retain existing broadband customers let alone gain new ones. Its new sports channel lacks depth to lure Sky triple-play punters (those with combined broadband, TV and landline packages) away from Sky's broader service. And BT's implementation, with a confusing tangle of options, leaves much to be desired. Are there enough semi-interested football fans - remember the real enthusiasts already have Sky - prepared to mull switching to BT? Perhaps, if BT Sport is complemented by other offerings such as movies and drama. Partial sport coverage may not be enough to move the needle either way.

I never had a ticket but called today and got one. Some season ticket holders can't make it and are making their seats available. So I will be there scarf in hand.

Just received mine too. Thanks for all your efforts to date.

http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Default.aspx CONTACT US ABOUT US County could block SPL revamp By Stephen Kasiewicz Published: 12/04/2013 Bookmark with: Share on linkedin Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on stumbleupon Share on favorites Share on blogger More Sharing Services Ross County look set to vote against league reconstruction after today’s board meeting to further discuss the new 12-12-18 plans. Staggies chairman Roy MacGregor has no reason to believe the club’s supporters, board and management will change their minds after their opposition to the proposals after a supporters’ forum in February. While Highland rivals Caley Thistle will vote for the new set-up, it is expected County will join St Mirren in rejecting the plans. An 11-1 majority vote is needed for the fresh structure to be approved. MacGregor will not comment about the outcome of today’s board meeting before the SPL vote on the new plans at Hampden on Monday. For the full story, pick up a copy of today’s Press and Journal or read our digital edition now

I never knew sporting integrity had a date. Sporting integrity was used to put us down, I reminded them that they have a responsibility to maintain the Sporting integrity they spoke of then should be consistent now.

Sent email to Ross county on Wednesday asking for Sporting integrity when voting.

Interpretation......question or comment.... It's still crass and says more about your mindset that you would even write that. As a relative of a child with Down's syndrome I can barely believe you could even compare downie in the same terms. Crass....

Bit of a crass comment to make.