Boycotting Away Games

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Gambol said:
To my mind it's more to do with what these teams are going to do to us.

It's in the current SPL rules that the share can be passed to a newco at their discretion. What the Gang of Ten are meeting about in the "fair play" farce is to decide how to change the rules to punish Rangers for them exercising that discretion. In other words punish us for what they want.

Now, we shat the nest and should take our lumps and my view is that a newco has no business being in the SPL. We should be booted and start from the 3rd Div.

However, changing the rules to punish us for them exercising an existing discretion is a little bit galling. If they want to keep us there, fine, exercise that discretion within the existing rules. Otherwise boot us to the 3rd.
Click to expand...

Quite Gambol <ok>

They're making a special case of Rangers because of the size of the club - any other team reforming would be straight into the 3rd - no-one would bat an eyelid.

Allowing a newco team into the top division with penalties can surely be refused by the new Rangers - can it not? Are they forcing AFC Rangers of Govan to enter the SPL?

Quite how this equates to "putting the boot in" when every Rangers fan is calling for a CVA is properly galling.

Every other team in Scotland has to pay its dues - to suggest that Rangers should only pay as little as 1% of their dues while everyone else pays their way is pish.

Presumably Lee Wallace will remain a Rangers player when Rangers took him out of his Hearts contract without paying for it - this is not a sole example, either.

How the **** is that fair?

Considering Rangers board's behaviour in the administration of Dundee and Airdrie, other teams can be considered to be putting the boot in when they apply for interdicts to secure the funds Rangers owe them or take their players for extremely reduced terms while the iron is hot.
 
simon_bhoy said:
could it not be viewed as a trade off though gambol?

we transfer the share (even though we didnt with other clubs) but you have to be punished by x y and z

is one or 2 seasons rebuilding really a big deal anyway? whereas i think going to the 3rd would be a kick in the nuts for you guys - regardless of what anyone may think, the best players you are going to get are 1st division lower prem ones a la gretna - and then when you do get back in the spl you would need to build a team to re-challenge anyway
Click to expand...

True, the discretion has never been exercised before. But why change the rules now? Why punish us for what they want?

Are they going to change the rules again toward the end of next season to somehow stop us from being relegated?

It's a farce.
 
"True, the discretion has never been exercised before. But why change the rules now? Why punish us for what they want?"

because it is what both parties want but there should be some sanction - you dont have to accept it presumably

"Are they going to change the rules again toward the end of next season to somehow stop us from being relegated?"

i would assume so - they increased the league when it was aberdeen

"It's a farce."

maybe its the best of a farcical situation
 
Bib Fortuna's Maw said:
Quite Gambol <ok>

They're making a special case of Rangers because of the size of the club - any other team reforming would be straight into the 3rd - no-one would bat an eyelid.

Allowing a newco team into the top division with penalties can surely be refused by the new Rangers - can it not? Are they forcing AFC Rangers of Govan to enter the SPL?

Quite how this equates to "putting the boot in" when every Rangers fan is calling for a CVA is properly galling.

Every other team in Scotland has to pay its dues - to suggest that Rangers should only pay as little as 1% of their dues while everyone else pays their way is pish.

Presumably Lee Wallace will remain a Rangers player when Rangers took him out of his Hearts contract without paying for it - this is not a sole example, either.

How the **** is that fair?

Considering Rangers board's behaviour in the administration of Dundee and Airdrie, other teams can be considered to be putting the boot in when they apply for interdicts to secure the funds Rangers owe them or take their players for extremely reduced terms while the iron is hot.
Click to expand...

Yep, it's an option for Rangers newco to resign their SPL share.

If we get a CVA (which I highly doubt) it's a moot point because the share won't need to be transferred.

Can't disagree Rangers shat the nest. They didn't pay their way and are in the **** and shat on the other clubs they owe money to along the way. No denying that and how truly galling that is to the other clubs.

We ended up in admin and got punished within the rules. We brought the game into disrepute and got punished within the rules. Thems the lumps.

Now they want to make new rules to punish us further because they want to keep us in the SPL? Punish us for what they want?

If they want us, keep us by using the existing discretionary rule. Otherwise boot us out.
 
Gambol said:
To my mind it's more to do with what these teams are going to do to us.

It's in the current SPL rules that the share can be passed to a newco at their discretion. What the Gang of Ten are meeting about in the "fair play" farce is to decide how to change the rules to punish Rangers for them exercising that discretion. In other words punish us for what they want.

Now, we shat the nest and should take our lumps and my view is that a newco has no business being in the SPL. We should be booted and start from the 3rd Div.

However, changing the rules to punish us for them exercising an existing discretion is a little bit galling. If they want to keep us there, fine, exercise that discretion within the existing rules. Otherwise boot us to the 3rd.
Click to expand...

The board can implement whatever punishment it see's fit under current rules. That could have meant a whole range of punishments like -50 points or relegation. You would still have received some form of punishment, they're now only proposing we put it in writing what those punishments are.

As for the proposed punishments of -10 points for two years is, to me, rangers getting of lightly. -10 points and you would still finish second which isn't really that much of a punishment.

The question is why even keep rangers in the spl?

For the next two years it will be a one horse race that i doubt sky will be interested in.
 
eric cartman said:
The board can implement whatever punishment it see's fit under current rules. That could have meant a whole range of punishments like -50 points or relegation. You would still have received some form of punishment, they're now only proposing we put it in writing what those punishments are.

As for the proposed punishments of -10 points for two years is, to me, rangers getting of lightly. -10 points and you would still finish second which isn't really that much of a punishment.

The question is why even keep rangers in the spl?

For the next two years it will be a one horse race that i doubt sky will be interested in.
Click to expand...

<ok>

Hearing all sorts of rumours about the punishments. 10 - 15 points for two seasons and also seizing of up to 75% of revenue <yikes> <laugh>
 
Gambol said:
<ok>

Hearing all sorts of rumours about the punishments. 10 - 15 points for two seasons and also seizing of up to 75% of revenue <yikes> <laugh>
Click to expand...

Worse than that they actually redistribute the seized revenue to the other clubs. That will send the boycott crowd over the edge when they find out they're still funding the other clubs just by being there.
 
eric cartman said:
Worse than that they actually redistribute the seized revenue to the other clubs. That will send the boycott crowd over the edge when they find out they're still funding the other clubs just by being there.
Click to expand...

<ok>

Yeah, I'd heard that's what would be done with the seized revenue.
 
im not sure that would happen and smacks of nose cutting tbh

i completely fail to see how div 3 benefits your club
 
Doubt it, very unlikely rangers will play in the 3rd division next year. It's all just posturing from angry people but none of them will have the convictions to go through with it.
 
The only reason we have a 12 team league , is for 4 old firm games , that is not happening next season . Time for common sense , 2 leagues of 16 teams , I would even bring back 2 points for a win , but extra points for scoring 4 0r more. One trip to Aberdeen / Dundee / hearts / hibs / would even get the home fans back out .
 
simon_bhoy said:
im not sure that would happen and smacks of nose cutting tbh

i completely fail to see how div 3 benefits your club
Click to expand...

Div 3 doesn't benefit our club. As a newco it's where we should be.

From a selfish point of view I'd much rather see my club compete in the 3rd than be hamstrung in the Premier.

But politicking and coin will not let that happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back