One of today’s newspapers did its very best to run with a one’s as bad as the other’ suggestion, saying : “Yes, both sides have justifiable grievances. Celtic were rightly outraged at the state their stadium was left in. Likewise, the Rangers board were understandably disgusted at those mock executions of blow-up dolls draped in red, white and blue scarves.”
This is wholly misrepresenting the situation. Celtic were rightly outraged at the blow-up dolls, criticised the actions at the time while endorsing the behaviour of the fabled “vast majority”. Celtic don’t have a problem with self-analysis; they’ve done it often enough in recent seasons in the face of Uefa fines.
The blow-up doll incident, and the faux defence of it, which Celtic didn’t offer, has nothing whatsoever to do with who pays for tens of thousands of pounds worth of vandalism carried out by visiting fans at Celtic Park. You can make your own suggestions as to why it was raised in connection with the subject.
The article goes on to offer up evidence of the bigger story, which it somehow manages to miss.
“Rangers (sic.) believe they have every right to take the hump because Celtic have chosen to ignore years of protocol – an unwritten rule which has stood the test of time, whereby each club pays for damage done to its own stadium by opposing fans on derby day.”
Maybe, maybe not, but here’s the thing, whatever unwritten rules Celtic and Rangers observed died in 2012.
You want unwritten rules to persist? Pay your taxes, register your players correctly, make full and honest submissions to HMRC inquiries instead of shredding correspondence. Play by the rules everyone else has to play by.
Cheat, lie, hide and shred and you have no defence in written rules, never mind unwritten objects of your imagination. This reality should now be writ large for all to understand.
After the 1909 Scottish Cup final between Celtic and Rangers ended suspiciously in a draw, one astute observer noted that the clubs were acting in concert, like an Old Firm, in order to generate gate receipts from a replay.
With the permission of Oldco’s administrators, Newco were able to change their name to “Rangers”, but that act of an administrator cut no ice at Celtic Park, or most other Scottish grounds.
There is no Old Firm, it died in 2012. Celtic don’t use the phrase, they don’t observe unwritten rules they had in place with Rangers, they don’t want their stadium trashed, they don’t want to install “prison grade” facilities for visiting fans (this is what’s now required in Scotland in 2017, good grief!), they would happily never host the club again.
If you think all that happened in 2012 was a “relegation” (which you’d earlier reported was impossible), this might be news to you. It was more than this; it was the end of the old ways – and good riddance to them.
Celtic will stand of fall on our own merits. We will observe the laws and rules of the land, the tax authorities, the Association, Uefa and Fifa (even if it means criticising our own fans). If you’re looking for unwritten favours after vandalising our property: tough.
And for those who continually see O.F. conspiracies, none of them have ever been able to tell me a business case for Celtic to put life into that concept. It’s not good for business, no matter what the wildest conspiracy theorist might tell you. Anyone who tells you it is needs to take a look at himself.
434 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- »
Hogmanay Memories
The Highlight of the year
Hogmanay was a real treat, the highlight of the year. Children would be allowed to stay up late in anticipation, waiting for the bells. It was never certain just who would turn up at the door, but someone always did. The food was laid out on the kitchen table covered with a pristine white tablecloth. Sandwiches, shortbread and black bun. Also, bottles of beer and a half-bottle of whisky, with bottles of cordial, a sort of sickly sweet concoction which virtually guaranteed that dentures would later be a necessity for the imbiber!
When the pub closed, well before midnight, Uncles Angus, Duncan and Alex would appear, with their favourite tipples in carrier bags, and a lump of coal as an omen of health, wealth and prosperity for the coming year. Grandad would enjoy a quite dram and a puff at his pipe, whilst Uncle Angus would, once again, re-create his part in the winning of the Battle of El Alamein in North Africa in 1942, using the salt and pepper and a box of matches. Everyone had heard it all before, of course. Mum and Dad enjoyed the commotion simply because it was an event in those days, a unique event, before the advent of late-pub closing and urban sophistication had made every Saturday night an event.
On the television would be The White Heather Club, with Andy Stewart and bagpipes, tartan, singing and lots of dancing, in black and white, of course. Then, finally, the moment we had all been waiting for- the countdown to the bells. In a frenzy everyone would refresh their glasses and listen to Andy Stewart intone the magic phrase, ‘Happy New Year!’ Everyone would give each other new year greetings, the ships in the docks would sound their foghorns, fireworks would ascend into the night sky and the celebrations would commence. Uncle Eck produced a guitar and would sing some rock and roll, followed by Harry Lauder’s Roaming in the Gloaming, just for Granny. After every verse she would laugh uproariously and cry out, ‘yir an awfy man, Harry!’ Neighbours would appear bearing records and these would be stacked on the Dansette record player, The Beatles, Helen Shapiro and, of course Cliff Richard and The Shadows for the younger ones. Strip the Willow, The Gay Gordons and The Dashing White Sergeant were then performed in the tiny living room, as grand as if it were the Royal Albert Hall.
More neighbours appeared from the landing, part of a giant impromptu conga which had spilled out from Mrs Findlay’s, three doors down. Her son, Big Tam, had been a Piper in the army and he was in the lead playing Heiland Laddie on the bagpipes, around three times faster than usual.
The party would begin to wind down around three in the morning, Mum’s favourite phrase to us protesting children was, ‘remember, it’s New Year tomorrow, as well.’ One by one, the revellers would leave after another rousing rendition of Auld Lang Syne. When they were gone, the table, once pristine and orderly, would now be a reminder of another Hogmanay. Another year over and the new year still to come, what would it bring? Stored in the ‘Press’, the ubiquitous pantry, the large, pre-ordered steak pie would be waiting for the traditional New Year dinner.
Many Hogmanays have come and gone since then. Although perhaps more sophisticated and grand, they will never outdo the special magic of those, perhaps, more innocent times. Most of the people I remember, including my uncles, have gone as well, but I can still hear the laughter and the music and still feel the sense of optimism and hope as the bells signalled the start of ‘Neerday’, looking to the future whilst remembering the past and absent friends. Still, whatever time we live in, whatever the ways of the world and the complexities of modern life, the greeting Happy New Year, is, and will always be, the cry at Hogmanay, A very Happy New Year to everybody.
HH
setting free the bears for Res. 12 & Oscar Knox on 16th January 2017 10:30 pm
For once I am not following you and when I experience this on line with anyone it usually means we are not starting from the same base.
Are you suggesting that Celtic should have argued to keep Rangers in the top tier?
That would have taken one hell of a lot of persuasion and at the end of the day was beyond (as was demonstrated) the power of all the SPL clubs to achieve. Supporters saw to that.
Where I think Celtic did get it wrong given the rules did not allow an alternative to the route taken was in any distancing themselves from the 5 way (that is what I meant by the policy of silence applying there).
That is where like you I think Green should have been told to sling his hook re same club, no stripping titles and making taking detoxification steps part of any agreement. We don’t know if Celtic did or didn’t do that (I suspect they didn’t) but Celtic did not sign the 5 Way, the SPL did, which means the majority of SPL clubs had no problem with TRFC starting from the bottom of the SFL.
Even if they had, what authority did the SPL have to stop it?
The SPL were bound by their rules and what (with benefit of hindsight) I’m saying is that that the application by RFC Administrators to obtain RFCs league share for whoever they were selling the assets of RFC to should not have gone to a vote. That share should have been surrendered for SPL to grant elsewhere as if a relegation had taken place and Duff and Phelps told to apply to the SFL as a new club from the off.
It was known months before admin that RFC were in big trouble and any rescue plan should not have had a top tier start as first choice but that came with SFA backing and threats which questions who decided that route in the first place? The answer will lie in who stood to benefit most.
This is the SPL rule that appears to have governed the process
” 14. If:-
(i) a Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share; or
(ii) a trustee in sequestration, manager, receiver or administrative receiver shall be appointed in respect of a Member or any property of a Member, or an administration order shall be made in respect of a Member or any property of a Member or an order shall be made or an effective resolution passed for the winding up of a Member otherwise than for the purpose of reconstruction or amalgamation;
then that Member or its manager, receiver, administrative receiver, administrator or liquidator or any other person entitled to the Share shall, on receiving notice in writing from the Board following the Company in General Meeting passing a Qualified Resolution that such notice should be issued by the Board and confirming the identity of the proposed transferee, transfer its Share to such other person as the Board shall direct at the price of £1 and the Club owned and operated by such Member shall forthwith cease to be a member of the League and the Club owned and operated by the transferee shall become a member of the League in its place.”
At the time in question there was no Club owned and operated by the transferee, just a prospective buyer of assets whose value depended on being treated by the SPL as a Club which the SPL defined as:
” Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League;”
Sevco weren’t
Auldheid on 17th January 2017 2:00 am
“The SPL were bound by their rules and what (with benefit of hindsight) I’m saying is that that the application by RFC Administrators to obtain RFCs league share for whoever they were selling the assets of RFC to should not have gone to a vote. That share should have been surrendered for SPL to grant elsewhere as if a relegation had taken place and Duff and Phelps told to apply to the SFL as a new club from the off. ”
why was this privilege not pursued for Gretna and Airdrie?
the glorious balance sheet on 17th January 2017 1:26 am
It doesn’t matter how big you are if you only have one vote and you only have power over other voters if you can use your power to get them to vote in your favour.
So what could Celtic offer other clubs to make them vote with them if that vote was going to cost other clubs more than Celtic could offer? I’m not saying we don’t have leverage but I think its overestimated.
However
” The Celtic directors have been given incontrovertible proof of rangers cheating that has cost our club millions. And yet they keep quiet in the face of the same club myth, retention of illegally won trophies, and also the small matter of many millions of pounds of CL and other prize monies we were cheated out of.
It’s all very strange.”
I agree, but think the reasons for doing so will become less tenable during this year after The Supreme Court and CW Trial.
Margaret McGill on 17th January 2017 2:08 am
Why indeed but who decided on the chosen route?
Somebody had to sit down and work out the policy going forward.
How was that done, what direction was given and by whom?
You would start with what do the rules say?
Do we want that outcome?
If not how do we avoid it?
What is the moral hazard?
Can we afford to risk it?
I think that has been underestimated but not by enough not to take the risk of the consequences of avoiding the rules.
Who really cares anyway, just a few bloggers.
It was never certain just who would turn up at the door, but someone always did.
WWW(GBWO) on 17TH JANUARY 2017 1:48 AM
Hogmanay Memories..
Beautiful
Braw.
WWW(GBWO) on 17th January 2017 1:48 am
Those were the days. :)
ernie lynch on 16th January 2017 11:37 pm
You cannot keep everyone happy but in football you don’t have to. That’s how it is with a very tolerant margin for error.
BTW ….Auld braw heid…you are an awfy braw lad..may you and yours share many a braw song…
Braw.
MARGARET MCGILL on 17TH JANUARY 2017 1:09 AM
Macjay
My old friend.
Can you clarify something for me?
What is my self interest?
self interest in the board wanting the OF or my self interest in not wanting that?
================================================================
Sorry.
Been out .
Vino. The buying of.
Not your self interest as an individual , Mag
The Celtic Trust.
Entryists.
With respect to you , Mag , and all the other decent people with whom I disagree , I have immensely more confidence in proven corporate achievers .
The D.D`s of this world.
Auldheid,
your ignoring the power the Plc had as a creditor to block the use of rangers in the name of any new entity.
Obfuscation around football rules or rivalries does not and can not be used to make any argument that lets them off the hook, had they used that legal right, there is nothing any one could have said or done to circumvent company law. There would be no entity called rangers thus the history or rivalry debate could not be played out in the meeja, there would be no further discussion on the subject and no ambiguities to get lost in. That single fact must be the fly in the Plc’s ointment.
P67 can try and label people conspiracy theorists in the exact same way the meeja labelled us paranoid only a few years ago, there have been many decent arguments posted today that challenged P67’s decree of no decent business model argument, the closest he comes to backing that decree up was banning the first offender who challenged his decree.
if the Plc wanted to see the back of rangers it was simple and there was nothing the football authorities could have done about it, to make excuses for that Plc while they at the time were treating the Celtic Support like second class citizens in their own home while waxing lyrical about how the new entity were the same club with a great history and tradition is enough to make any sane Celtic Supporter with a sense of ethics angry.
Chairbhoy on 16th January 2017 11:16 pm
AULDHEID @ 10:00 PM,
The rules and protocols of Football dictate that It is Associations and Leagues that make the rules and take decisions not individual Football Clubs.
Sure this failed dramatically in Scotland and it was a sad indictment but as you say, it was down to the Clubs as a collective to right this wrong – the fact that it was Supporter pressure and not Club Leaders who barred NewCo from starting in the top tier is another sad indictment of our Scottish Football institutions.
Now you could argue that Celtic being the biggest Club and the Club who were most hurt by the Rangers dishonesty, had a right or even an obligation to break away and speak out.
It’s not the way I see it, the Scottish Football Establishment and the SMSM would loved to have made this an Old Firm story, they would love to have pulled us in, made it a Spat. They would have shown us as vindictive and petty.
==========================
That presentation of Res12 as an OF issue rather than a governance one certainly was a factor in the under the counter manner Res12 was taken forward. Still is. The SFA wanted it portrayed as such for the good reason that they don’t want the lid lifted on their part in granting and helping retain the 2011 UEFA licence.
WWW(GBWO) on 17TH JANUARY 2017 1:48 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEL9YHJgIRk
Trivia :
the ” anay ” is French for year.
Hogmanay means the egg of the year.
Very poetic description.
macjay1 for Neil Lennon on 17th January 2017 2:43 am
Its ok mate I get you.
All hail the Bigot buck and Walfradian charity is for us victims.
I couldnt think of a better definition of fascism myself.
Thanks.
Auldheid,
We don’t know if the SFA tried to portray Res12 as an old firm issue, all we now is that those who prevaricated on Res12 told us the SFA would try to make it such. So far I’ve seen no proof of that but I have seen nothing done by those we were supposed to be working together with that refused to take action or share their agenda.
We have a lot to look forward to
http://gothamist.com/2012/03/13/photos_donald_trump_sons_awesome_at.php#photo-2
MARGARET MCGILL on 17TH JANUARY 2017 2:55 AM
Nobody abhors the hun mentality more than me.
I want rid of Rangers because I feel they are a major cause and focus of religious bigotry in Scotland.
Not because I yearn for a Celtic hegemony.
Macjay:
I wonder if the world would acclaim Sir David Murray a corporate achiever…. or just a wee cheeky rascal.
After that decision to absolve Rob Kiernan of any wrongdoing with regards sporting assault, where no sporting advantage was gained, with a Sandy Brysonesue ‘not proven’ verdict, would it not be beneficial to the corporate image of Celtic PLC to have their lawyers appeal the Aleksandar Antonov Tonev verdict?
THE GLORIOUS BALANCE SHEET:
Was it ever categorically published that Stranraer were the club (with fearless ethics) that voted The Rangers out of the SFL?
I thought their chairman was on record as saying he would vote them into Div. 3.
General question… is it ‘clubs” that are extended licences to play in the SFL/SPL and not ‘holding companies’?
Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on 17th January 2017 2:46 am
Say you are in a position in 2012 where a number of fellow clubs whom you depend on to provide opposition are in fear for their future in Scottish football with no ” Rangers” in it.
How do you justify to them actively and publicly going for your pound of flesh if you are part of that pound?
The time to address the same club issue was during the secret 5 Way agreement negotiations with Green but I suspect Celtic kept out of it formally even if only on grounds of plausible deniability.
I doubt they even saw the same club notion as an issue believing at the time the 5 Way was being negotiated that it was evident from mid June when CVA failed that Rangers were going to be liquidated and like most folk not of the blue persuasion though that meant the end.
The same club holding company myth came along after the dust was done and dusted by 3 August but being able to use it was key to Green taking over. Its not the same club idea that rankles most I think, it is the idea of any future trophies being added to the history of the club that went out of business in 2012.
That little bit of festering toxicity will erupt if/when that happens.
Here is some info on the use of The Rangers name from of all places Follow Follow who complained to BBC about being called New Rangers. Not sure how Celtic could have intervened in the process described certainly not on the basis it would impact negatively on Celtic’s business.
From FF.
” I complained to them about the oldco newco rubbish. Response below
Reference CAS-1597996-JKYVJY
Thanks for contacting the BBC. I understand you feel it’s inaccurate to refer to ‘Newco Rangers’ or ‘New Rangers’ when referring to Rangers FC. Thank you for your comments, which were passed to the Sports Editor, who has asked that I forward his response as follows: “Thank you for contacting us. At a meeting on Tuesday 31st July, the “oldco” shareholders voted to allow Charles Green’s Sevco Scotland Ltd to transfer the name “The Rangers Football Club Ltd” (the company has to use “Ltd” as it’s not listed on the stock exchange – the oldco’s name is “The Rangers Football Club P.L.C.”). Mr Green’s company now needs to apply to Companies House to change its company name. However, Companies House informed BBC Scotland in June that the newco would not be able to apply to change its name to ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ until either the original company is fully dissolved – a process which can take about a year or more to complete – or the receivers give the go-ahead for the name change to take place. From a regulations standpoint, once the receivers or the liquidators/administrators for the current PLC agree to a name change, Sevco could then apply to change its name to ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’. If Sevco applies without following this procedure, Companies House has informed BBC Scotland that systems are in place to flag up names which are too similar. BDO (the receivers) have not yet taken control of the oldco’s affairs, so it may be the case that Duff & Phelps (the administrators of the oldco) will attempt to give permission for the name transfer to Mr Green’s Sevco Scotland Ltd. BBC Scotland will continue to monitor Companies House for a name-change filing at Sevco Scotland Ltd and report an update if and when the company name change takes place. Given this, in the interests of clarity for the audience, BBC Scotland will continue to make the distinction between off-field and on-field activity in relation to the newco and oldco, where appropriate, in order to accurately reflect the legal status of the parent company and the football registration status of the club. The Rangers story, which is fast-moving and complicated even for those who follow it most closely, is one that needs to be told fairly and clearly and I believe that our journalism is well up to that task.” Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Ryan Burroughs
BBC Complaints”
KITALBA on 17TH JANUARY 2017 3:15 AM
Kit.
My old friend.
I want to pass on to you all the good wishes of myself and my family , most of whom you have met during a couple of great days when Lenny and the boys visited Sydney.
You currently are facing a challenge. A challenge which , as one way of accepting reality ,I have always said to myself…….
My day will come .
And it will.
You , of course , will have made yourself well informed about the subject which can very much be a blessing in disguise. Please be assured of our thoughts.
If we could assist in any way , we would be delighted to do so.
I look forward to years of future disagreement , pleasant of course :-) , on the blog , or even better face to face over a wee dram.
Aye yours , Kit.
Is it true that both Airdrie and Dundee tried to ‘abstain’ from the SFL vote on where to rehouse The Rangers but were nonetheless forced to vote? I wonder where the empathy of those two clubs lives…. not that it mattered other than maybe an attempt at squirrel gloss over the count.
MACJAY1:
I’m okay. I’m here to talk about Celtic and things related and nothing else.
KITALBA on 17TH JANUARY 2017 3:42 AM
MACJAY1:
I’m okay. I’m here to talk about Celtic and things related and nothing else.
===================================================
Sorry.
kitalba on 17th January 2017 3:36 am
General question… is it ‘clubs” that are extended licences to play in the SFL/SPL and not ‘holding companies’?
====================
Yes but because there are various constructs that clubs can take, UEFA define how they see a club for CLUB licensing purposes (not club/ company licencing purposes or any of that scrupulous based tripe used to justify the idea one can be separate from the other in the footballing business.) THE FA told Southampton to take a hike when they went into administration and tried to avoid points deduction saying it was their holding company that went bust. See here for the FA’s position.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8014811.stm
Back to UEFA who Under Article 12 of CLUB Licensing state.
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football CLUB, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible
for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated
league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football
company).
They say this in order to avoid clubs trying to use the Southampton wheeze for avoiding sporting sanctions.
In the case of RFC UEFA applied the next part which says
” The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at
the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years ”
and used this in their response to Res12 lawyers to explain why TRFC were ineligible to apply for a licence until three years had passed. It just means that in UEFA’s eyes they simply did not recognise TRFc’s membership being over three years old in August 2012 because to UEFA TRFC/RIFC are a new club/company under b) above.
Bedski
, the idea that a holding company can be separate from a club if all it does is operate that club as its only source of business has been jumped on to allow keep the idea that the club survives i
AULDHEID:
I was sort of trying to confine that question to Scotland and its authorities as opposed external organisations.
The way I see it, I am slow, it takes me a wee while to catch up, back in 2012, there were categorically and unequivocally two clubs in Scotland, claiming Ibrox as their home ground, who were granted licences….
at the same time.
an addendum to the above
were granted licences…. (or were holding a licence)
Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on 17th January 2017 2:59 am
Auldheid,
We don’t know if the SFA tried to portray Res12 as an old firm issue, all we now is that those who prevaricated on Res12 told us the SFA would try to make it such.
=================
When John Clark of SFM buttonholed Regan at Edinburgh Uni, Regan tried to pass off the question as being a West of Scotland issue but old JC soon put him right. From the horses mouth.
Then there was the pursuit of the Celtic Comp Secretary after the SFA AGM where SFA surprisingly announced that we were going to contact UEFA.
The pursuer was STV Grant Russell and camera man and this is what he was after.
” The next questions are: what are UEFA doing to investigate, and have Celtic plc written to them on behalf of the requisitioners?”
I have that on record.
Now who or what prompted that little panto and to what purpose but to draw Celtic in.
Had Traverso not came out with his new club/company response that was omitted from Grants published report a week after SFA got UEFA letter then Res12 might have died and given that response confirmed no sanctions on Rangers, who else would have benefitted from killing it off than the SFA or were Celtic in on it? That is certainly not the impression I got from a chap not wanting his face all shown all over the media on such a sensitive subject. I can empathise there.
==========================
So far I’ve seen no proof of that but I have seen nothing done by those we were supposed to be working together with that refused to take action or share their agenda.
+++++++++
So far ……….. but I take your point.
It does not mean though SFA did not want Res12 portrayed as an OF issue (as that suited them) or that Celtic were making it up.
kitalba on 17th January 2017 4:07 am
You are referring to I think to the Brechin game? It wasn’t a licence that was wanted but SFA membership which is different from licensing.
To overcome that hurdle Sevco were granted a conditional licence, a category not in the SFA rules. Ultra virs as the late Paul McConville called it.
Licences are granted annually on certain criteria being met each year. SFA Membership lasts as long as a club does.
SFA transferred the Membership of RFC to Sevco/TRFC which gives illusion of continuity but SFA have never stated their position as regards that transfer conveying continuity of SFA membership to RFC.
UEFA though did not recognise the domestic transfer of membership as satisfying UEFA’s need for eligibility for Europe which is where membership and licensing cross paths and cause confusion.
If only Scottish football had had an Article 12 equivalent…..
Auldheid,
As usual you completely ignore the question and thrust of the argument framing and setting parameters you want to address.
Just to keep it simple, I did not ask or care about what other teams thought or their economic concerns, they are and were irrelevant to the question asked. They only become relevant if the object is to loose the question in irrelevant tangents.
There are laws that allow creditors to object to companies pheonixing, regardless of the footballing worlds rules, the Plc owed it to their own support and shareholders to remove future SFA motives for corruption, or are you going to tell us the Plc were unaware of corruption and its primary source at the SFA?
You say the Plc could not have known they were going to pheonix as you drag this discussion into the 5way agreement land. The same club discussion was on every Celtic blog and site and probably more other clubs websites and blogs, something you conveniently omit, everyone expected them to try and pheonix except the best board in the country, is that what you are trying to convince us to accept ?
Even after all you’ve experienced you are looking for ways to justify or find excuses for their collusion or incompetence.
The main point though, and I fully expect you to ignore it again and return to which ever tangent you want to take.
The main point was the question much repeated on here by those who like to pretend it was all out with the Plc’s control to do anything,
What could the Plc do ?
And I’ll repeat in the hope it sinks in, the Plc as a creditor, could have objected to Rangers being used in the naming of any new Scottish footballing entity emanating from the basket of assets.
The question is simple, the answer is even simpler but those who don’t like the answer will always try to loose it in irrelevant ambiguities of their own invention.
Now if you feel like responding, can we keep it on the Q&A, as the footballing rules, economics and corruption really are irrelevant to the original question.
As creditors, I don’t see anything stopping them objecting even ate this late stage as the old club has not yet been liquidated while the new club is claiming to be the old club.
Oh and
Supposin, supposin supposin
Three wee men were frozen and one died
How many survived ?
Honestly Auldheid, I know it’s for the sake of argument but it’s really just a distraction from the answer, innit.
Hail Hail
And nitol
I suppose we should read all this…
Romani
Braw
”There should not be a special case made for any club and we believe that the proper place for a phoenix club to restart life is at the lowest level.”
Stranraer official statement.
“We’re not asking for special treatment, but neither will we be treated as less than anyone else, those days are gone.”
“bold, radical action” should be taken against “lies, conspiracies and cover-ups” within Scottish football.’
John Reid
“It is not an SFL issue. We’ve been lumbered with this. There are rules we feel they should be followed. They [newco Rangers] should apply for the Third Division. [We are being] bullied, railroaded and lied to. We are being lied to by the Scottish FA and the SPL. We are being threatened and bullied. It is not football as I know it. It was a ridiculous document which came out last week whereby the threat was there that if you don’t vote for an acceptance into the First Division, a breakaway SPL2 will come along and those who didn’t vote wouldn’t be invited. What kind of game are we running here? It is corrupt.”
Mr Turnbull Hutton
“As a consequence of decisions taken in 2012 as well as the administration of the club the events/measures that followed (including the new club/company being ineligible to apply for a licence to participate to in UEFA competitions for three seasons), there is no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further since the club was not granted a licence to participate in the 2012/13 UEFA club competitions, the new club/company entered the fourth tier of Scottish Football and it was not able to play in UEFA competitions for the next three years in any event.”
Andrea Traverso
“We have a Nuclear dossier and we will use it…”
anonymous
In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
The time is always right to do what is right.
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
“I am the captain of my soul.”
― Nelson Mandela
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.
John F. Kennedy
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to pause and reflect.”
Mark Twain
Romani is the wee sister of Romani..
Flush flush
Braw
Domani
Brawderators… What’s Italian for procrastination?
Braw