CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I wonder if these clubs new to the SPL fold insisted on an indemnity clause written into this agreement in respect of Harry Hood's claim against the SPL.http://www.dailyreco...ry-hood-1785059 Question: Harry Hood's claim is against the SPL. This new body (SPFL) is basically a new company which will be registered as a new company (may already have done so) and we might find that the old SPL being quietly "folded"..........to, er...........avoid any confusion with the new SPFL (aye right). Thus, Hood's claim (being against the old SPL) will fall on its arse as that company will have ceased trading. The perfect crime. Magnificent. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupret 223 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 They had to, the only good option in this, is the low league pyramid, I so hope Dungcaster is not in charge of the new outfit, but I know he will be, sigh!!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarkev 3,540 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 They had to, the only good option in this, is the low league pyramid, I so hope Dungcaster is not in charge of the new outfit, but I know he will be, sigh!!!!There are some teams with real potential goining into that lowlands league....East Kilbride are very well funded and have big big plans....in 5/6 years the landscape of the 3rd and 4th team could be very different....I suppose that would be another reason for some lower SFL clubs to be against this albeit I think there are plenty of other reasons! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danger ranger 922 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I fear you are right.A Rangers, with all the benefits it brings along, but with no voice to change anything they decide is exactly what they want.Well there is an answer to this, boycott everthing outside Ibrox, and keep the blue pound for Rangers only. If Rangers fans won't accept that then what is the point talking about it , we are sounding like sad old bastards sitting at the end of the bar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryMc 2,394 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I am neither defending or criticising our current board here but what could they actually have done to prevent this? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danger ranger 922 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I give up now. I find hard to see why anyone of us of us even bother anymore? The clowns at our club don't so why should we?Walter Smith? Craig Mather? What have these 2 done at Rangers since taking there new positions?That's what they do, grind you down, so that you give up and just accept any old shite they sell you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Educator 1,572 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 now regarding the associate membership stuff.Had the status quo remained, as soon as we got to the SPL we would have got our voting rights back.Now that the bodies have oined they can keep us as associate members for the full 5 years,which means at least a year in the top flight with no voting rights or say on anything.BUT, with the bodies merging, surely the "associate members of the SFL" does not exist anymore as the SFL does not exist anymore.we should become full members of the SPFL with full voting rights, but can anyone see this happening?Surely in the interests of Sporting integrity this would happen automatically. However this might be one of the ways to lodge a legal protest against this take over. The SPL must show the share holders of the clubs that they are indeed solvent before they can takeover the SFL. There is also the small problem of Hearts, as they have not been able to fulfil their financial obligations we now see that the SPL decision of a week ago was a total sham. If Rangers were not allowed a vote neither should Hearts or Dunfermline. There is a word that describes this situation and that is CORRUPTION. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danger ranger 922 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Why do all these officials keep coming out to say "there was only one option"?Why was there only one option?! What are the specific consequences should this "option" not be chosen? There is a distinct lack of detail being given out.There was only one option for them, to save their arse and totally control the money and Rangers who generate most of the money deals. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
allgers 735 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Associate membership is being dropped, i think this means we are either full members of the SPFL or they have to chuck us out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essandoh 21,278 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I give up now. I find hard to see why anyone of us of us even bother anymore? The clowns at our club don't so why should we?Walter Smith? Craig Mather? What have these 2 done at Rangers since taking there new positions?How the fuck did you expect Mather and Smith to stop this going through? You're the clown. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
better than all the rest 153 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Surprised this got voted through, why the lower league clubs backed it I don't know. But who is going to be the first club chairman to come out and say next year this isn't what they signed up for they have changed the goal posts etc. A sweepstakes is needed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danger ranger 922 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Only in Scotland we could restructure the leagues from 12-10-10-10 to 12-10-10-10..............And we all thought the Irish were fucking daftI thought the Irish were controlling our game. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
danger ranger 922 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 How the fuck did you expect Mather and Smith to stop this going through? You're the clown.We will find out shortly if the other two clowns have been supporting the reconstruction. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ca11um 30 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Bring back charles green ? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Question: Harry Hood's claim is against the SPL. This new body (SPFL) is basically a new company which will be registered as a new company (may already have done so) and we might find that the old SPL being quietly "folded"..........to, er...........avoid any confusion with the new SPFL (aye right). Thus, Hood's claim (being against the old SPL) will fall on its arse as that company will have ceased trading. The perfect crime. Magnificent.Its the same company. its the existing SPL company. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dude 20,026 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I give up now. I find hard to see why anyone of us of us even bother anymore? The clowns at our club don't so why should we?Walter Smith? Craig Mather? What have these 2 done at Rangers since taking there new positions?What were you expecting? WE had no vote in the matter. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Its the same company. its the existing SPL company. Are you 100% on this? It makes sense (in the world of Doncaster & Lawwell) for them to dump the old company and start off afresh with the new one. The existing SPL company is stony broke. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogzy 31,195 Posted June 12, 2013 Author Share Posted June 12, 2013 Are you 100% on this? It makes sense (in the world of Doncaster & Lawwell) for them to dump the old company and start off afresh with the new one. The existing SPL company is stony broke. i am also very sure that its the spl with a new name. It was all in the annan chairmans statement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BertContraband 282 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Maybe some legal expert out there can clarify for me the implications of this decision.Rangers are not full members of the SFL and had no say or vote in this decision.Presumably that means we are bound by this decision? BUT------------If it transpires in future that the SPL finances were not disclosed in full before the vote can Rangers refuse to honour the TV contract and/or liabilities of the SPL?Could we then negotiate our own TV tights and claim back the money they stole fromus under false pretenses? Can we shaft the baxxards?If Charles was still here he'd have our top legal minds on the case Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornabear 6,211 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Surprised this got voted through, why the lower league clubs backed it I don't know. But who is going to be the first club chairman to come out and say next year this isn't what they signed up for they have changed the goal posts etc.A sweepstakes is needed.It's called a bribe, simples. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoorie 1,088 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 I don't think this question deserves its own thread but Admin please feel free to move.There is a rule which says something along the lines of, " clubs subject to criminal activity, cannot be punished".Is this an SFA, or an SPL rule?You can see where this is going! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclovin9091 1,405 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 At a guess to that rule, It was an SPL rule which may have benefited us therefore now no longer exists as the rule book has now been written for the SPFL,on a side note NO comebacks for any SFA rules that may have been breeched by the SPL in previous years as we (insert new board members) say so, na na na! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Robot 21,442 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 For years the old firm had the say with the 2 votes against rule and this has remained. This worked for us for years so I don't see any issues with it now.I have no doubt all these little and large setbacks for us is nothing more than the scum setting their groundwork for ten in a row. These cunts will only succeed if we keep arguing amongst ourselves so we really need to start concentrating on supporting the team and let our board run the club. We didn't have any choices today and unfortunately we and the club had to accept whatever they dished us. Revenge will be sweet when we get it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 109,758 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 Are you 100% on this? It makes sense (in the world of Doncaster & Lawwell) for them to dump the old company and start off afresh with the new one. The existing SPL company is stony broke.According to the Annan chief its the spl's company number etc Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calgacus 88 Posted June 12, 2013 Share Posted June 12, 2013 It's not a new company - it will be SPL Limited with a change of name. I don't really see what all the fuss is about. The part time clubs in Div 2 & 3 will continue pretty much as before, the full time clubs in Div 1 get a bit more money and some of the SPL clubs will get a bit less money. There's a chance for a second club to win promotion through the play offs which seems a good idea. Having one organisation should lead to some financial savings through economies of scale. 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.