Aberdeen: Under huge pressure from their fans to say no. Will they bow to their fans will or put short term gain ahead of sporting integrity? Home fans staying away could outweigh any financial advantage of having Rangers visit once or twice per season. Verdict: No Celtic: Best placed to sustain three years without Rangers and possible reduction in TV deal. Backing a NewCo would also prove hugely unpopular with the fans. Verdict: No Dundee Utd: Club is in regular contact with supporter's association and have been told in no uncertain terms that a NewCo directly into the SPL is a no-no. Verdict: No Hearts: The Federation of Hearts Supporters’ Clubs today called for a NewCo to start in the 3rd division as it would be better for Hearts. He believes that no Rangers in the SPL would lead to improved competition. Despite this, the club has dropped hints in the past that they want Rangers, under any guise, in the SPL. Verdict: Yes Hibs: Rod Petrie has made it abundantly clear he thinks a NewCo should start in Division 3. Hibs fans’ chief Mike Riley today called for Rangers to be booted out. Verdict: No Inverness Caley Thistle: Have been critical in the past at the prospect of a NewCo going straight into the SPL but are likely to come round if there are sanctions attached. Verdict: Yes Kilmarnock: Nothing to say here. Verdict: Yes with knobs on Motherwell: Another club that's under huge pressure from their fans to say no. Club has hinted at being in favour or a NewCo being straight back in the SPL but say they will listen to their fans. Verdict: Uncertain Ross County: New club in the SPL. Too difficult to call. Verdict: Uncertain St Johnstone: Want a NewCo in the SPL but with sanctions attached. If push comes to shove are likely to vote in favour of New Co. Verdict: Yes St Mirren: If fans group take over before vote then likely to say no. However, current Board look likely to last till then and are likely to vote yes. Verdict: Yes Yes: 5 No: 4 Uncertain: 2 It'll be interesting to see what impact the pressure from fans of teams like Hearts and Motherwell will have on their respective Chairmen. Could be the difference between a NewCo getting straight into the SPL or having to start in Division 3. Rangers need 7 clubs to vote Yes.
Gilmour released a statment yesterday saying that none of the remaining bids for St Mirren are from fans' groups. Even if they get taken over shortly, the new owners will probably be a yes. The fans I know (around half my mates) are largely **** scared about this - they're still reeling from nearly being Rangers "Clydebank".
Celtic will probably vote yes. As for the others, it's impossible to tell unless they specifically say they will vote against a newco. As yet, none have done this. 1/10 for the thread, but you only get that one because you used bold for each team.
One question will it come out in the wash , who voted what way ??? Or will it be all hush hush to save their own clubs back .
I was going to do them in their individual colours but the last time I did that it seemed to upset Nev for some reason.
say what you like about rangers fans - they do love a good bold font i think celtic will vote yes - i think it will overall be yes but with some harsh sanctions such as pre match meals consisting of the navel fluff gathered from messrs lawell, thompson and milne
Rangers (or, whoever is running them) get a vote. I think everyone is presuming they'll vote yes - it's not impossible that they won't, I suppose.
Sorry for the really long post but THIS is why people are voting against rangers who are these people? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Vanguard Bears believe that the situation of Rangers, one of Scotland’s largest institutions must now be formally reviewed by the Westminster Government, in the form of a public judicial review. While the football club is now approaching the transition to a newco, following HMRCs rejection of a CVA, and several processes are underway from the SFA and SPL, VB believes that a these processes should be dispensed with in favour of a more credible judicial review. Following the SPLs choice of legal team to review Rangers situation, where the law firm chosen was Celtic FCs lawyers Harper McLeod (1), and the SFA’s failure to apply their own rules (2) when punishing Rangers, it is the belief of this site that neither of these organisations is fit and proper to assist in objectively seeking to get to the truth, and take the appropriate action. We believe that ALL Stakeholders involved in the corporate Governance, banking, and tax affairs of the Rangers should be subject to objective and fair scrutiny until justice is done. We also believe, in the interests of fairness, that the processes involved in establishing the truth should become a template, to carry out background checks on every single professional football club in the UK, and to ensure all clubs are treated in the same manner. There are many questions to be asked, and we at VB are keen to contribute supporters’ queries to such a review. The reason for this is very simple. Rangers are a cultural institution in Scotland, with millions of fans across the globe. Many we believe to have been involved in the corporate governance of the club are high profile individuals with links to Government agencies. It has to be established if those in positions of influence over Rangers have conducted themselves correctly and within the law. While the questions will grow, this morning we are beginning the collation of questions that must be answered. Further suggestions are welcome via email, at [email protected] While we do use various social media outlets, we’d like all suggestions to be collated in the one place Initial Questions: - Lloyds Bank. At a time when Rangers' finances were "on the up" and the books were looking better year-on-year, Lloyds Bank, 42% owned by the taxpayer, suddenly decided to appoint their very expensive consultant Donald Muir to the Rangers Board. Various accounts from former Rangers Directors allege that Muir, on behalf of the bank, forced David Murray to sell the Club to Craig Whyte. Why? Vanguardbears uncovered that the man leading Lloyds at the time was one Manus J. Fullerton, the founding Chair of the Celtic Trust. The story then appeared on other sites, and blogs (3) - More recently at a Lloyds shareholders meeting, their Chairman has been found to have LIED by firstly stating that Fullerton was not involved, and secondly by being economical with the truth regarding the timing of Fullerton's retirement (Fullerton continued to work for the bank well after his official retirement date). Why these lies? What was Fullerton's role? Why did Lloyds force Murray to sell when the books were looking healthier than they had done in years and the debt to Lloyds was less than £20 million? (5) - HMRC. From the beginning of this saga, it was strongly suspected that information was being leaked by HMRC to the likes of Phil MacGiollabhain and the Rangers Tax Case Blog. We have little doubt this was happening. We understand that control of Rangers tax affairs was originally under the auspices of their management in Scotland. As the case progressed, with reports appearing regularly in both the aforementioned blogs, the case was transferred to their London offices. Why? Who was leaking information and what was their reason for doing so? - HMRC (Again) Charles Green expressed dismay at the actions of HMRC yesterday, following the rejection of the CVA (4) “To read in Paul Clark’s statement today that HMRC are saying this is a policy decision: is it a policy from HMRC that came out this morning? If this has always been their policy why didn’t they tell us this in February and March and save a lot of money and a lot of time? There are a lot of Rangers fans who have had their hopes built up for nothing. I can’t comment on what Paul Clark and David Whitehouse may or may not have said to HMRC, but what I do know – because I’m copied into the emails – is what Deloitte, who were acting for me, were doing. They had arranged meetings to go and see them, there had been dialogue between the parties. If this was a policy I would have expected HMRC to say to Deloitte ‘you are wasting your time, we have a policy against CVAs, we’re not going to do it’.” It is our belief that the decision making of the HMRC requires to be investigated fully, to establish if they have acted in the best interests of the tax payer The HMRCs statement: "A liquidation provides the best opportunity to protect taxpayers, by allowing the potential investigation and pursuit of possible claims against those responsible for the company’s financial affairs in recent years. A CVA would restrict the scope of such action. Moreover the liquidation route does not prejudice the proposed sale of the club. This sale can take place either through a CVA or a liquidation. So the sale is not being undermined, it simply takes a different route. Liquidation will enable a sale of the football assets to be made to a new company, thereby ensuring that football will continue at Ibrox. It also means that the new company will be free from claims or litigation in a way which would not be achievable with a CVA. Rangers can make a fresh start." - Why did HMRC allow Rangers/Craig Whyte to build up a mammoth PAYE Tax Bill by not immediately putting the club into Administration following the first missed PAYE payment? This is against their normal business practice - Can the public be assured that the Murray group, and it’s 30% Stakeholder, the Government owned Lloyds Banking group, will not escape scrutiny, due to their Government links? - Can the public be assured that the Government will fully investigate the involvement of Collyer Bristow in the Rangers takeover by Craig Whyte? - Can the public be assured that HMRC have any evidence to suggest they will retrieve a sum in excess of Rangers CVA Offer from either David Murray or Craig Whyte? - Will HMRC Confirm or Deny refusing an offer of £15M to settle Rangers account in full by Craig Whyte? - To date, how much have HMRC spent pursuing Rangers Football Club for alleged tax arrears? - Has anyone in HMRC breached confidentiality by leaking sensitive information to bloggers, or the BBC? If so, what action will be taken? - If EBTs were legal until 2010, how can action be taken on use of the practice prior to that date - Martin Bain. At a time when the club was losing significant sums of money, subject to bank demands and subsequently put into Administration, our former Chief Executive appeared to be awarding himself HUGE performance bonuses, based on success achieved by the football team. The success of Walter Smith’s football side, while covering the failures of the board should not have been the basis of Director’s bonuses - Why did the SFA/SPL, despite their "fit and proper person" rules, fail to apply any due diligence on the Craig Whyte takeover, then subsequently punish Rangers for their own failings? - Why did Stewart Regan’s SFA Identify Craig Whyte as “not fit and proper” in October 2011 then take no further action until after Rangers were in Administration, several months later - Why have the SPL and SFA changed rules on Administration and Newco formation as the situation has evolved? - Why have these organisations sought to punish Rangers at every turn, while Livingston, Dundee & Motherwell were all offered assistance & financial support whilst in administration? - Former Directors allege that the custodianship of Rangers by David Murray was in effect a Dictatorship, where normal powers of Directors were diluted. Why did several former Directors take huge salaries for doing half a job? - As Rangers have continued sliding in to the abyss, why have Scotland’s politicians remained largely silent on the affair? We believe now is the time to collate these questions, and take them to Westminster. Admin: Vanguard Bears
Vanguard Bears. A collection of morons from Govan and the Shankill. please log in to view this image Mural on the Shankill. I'm sure David Cameron has the kettle on for these chaps.
hmmm i dont really care about any of that stuff - its more the insane paranoid ramblings that celtic are behind everything that i find funny its this braggado instead of humility that is turning other teams against them - an inhuman sense of entitlement that is quite absurd ps - im sure this is not every rangers fan and comments are not to be applied across the board pps rangers fans smell
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/spl/4371930/Rival-fans-want-Light-Blues-dumped-in-Div-3.html Send them to the 3rd so that they have to rebuild themselves financially.
The Dandy Dons confirm they're voting no: http://www.footballcourier.com/news...rt-and-insist-club-will-vote-for-rangers.html
