nvager 498 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 If the SPL pass the changes described/proposed in the other thread(s) can RFC not challenge the fact that they are changing the rules AFTER we entered administration and insist that the rules at that time can only apply to us and not new rules applied retrospectively. I think the changes only apply to liquidation though and would not apply if we manage a CVA - is this correct? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I suppose they would just say the rules were changed before we went into liquidation ... still all the same how much more obvious could they make it that it's get Rangers at all costs Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCutch 4,340 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Make no mistake about it.This is a "Rangers only" set of rules being thumped out here.They are covering themselves in the event of liquidation and a newco being set up.It's a case of..."We need you to get us our TV deal, so please come back""We need you to fill our stadiums, so please come back"But, "We wont be letting you compete, or take your rightful money allocation""Is that ok with you Rangers?"I would gamble, that if, in a couple of years time, someone like DUFC or Hibs etc.. find themselves in a similar situation there will be a whole new set of rules trotted out.Parasitical wankers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastcoast Al 1 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I think you will find the late payment of players is most probably aimed at Hearts to be honest, but I get your point. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
macranger 296 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Well surely, as a member club, we will get a vote on this. Now I don't know if it will be an all or nothing vote, I.e. will there be a vote on each resolution, or vote on all being accepted. Cos I think hearts would vote against the one about players being paid on time, as it's a direct dig at them, & it will still need a 11 - 1 majority to go through.But anyway, would Sky want to spend money on a league that has already been decided at the start of each season ......... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastcoast Al 1 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 I think that dependant on the proposal in question some as 11-1 and some are 8-4. Where this was derived from or decided on I don't know. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunslinger 270 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 we probably asked them to put these in place. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
j1mgg 3,766 Posted April 12, 2012 Share Posted April 12, 2012 Then our new owner should make sure we dont liquidate us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.