Rangers Into Administration

[StandFree1982]

Ah, I find it refreshing hearing the Huns saying we should be careful to kick them when they are down considering the Huns have been doing that for 20 years. They are finally realising that NOBODY likes them, not even the smaller clubs. It must really be a blow to those tattoo'd, flute blowing knuckle draggers who thought they would be saved.

[Bobby Connor]

No one likes us

 

Correct.

[StandFree1982]

Correct.

Surely not surprising! They have been cunts for the best part of....well, 100+ years.

[ninja-lewis]

Rule 74 of the SFL constitution suggests that it's only a 66% majority that is needed for rule changes so no idea where the 50% amount has come from.

 

Sounds like media spin.

Article 60

 

SUSPENSION OF RULES

Members shall have power by resolution passed at a general meeting by not less than seventy five per cent (75%) of the Members to suspend any of these Rules for a definite or indefinite period of time and may adopt by a similar majority for a definite or indefinite period of time, temporary Rules in addition to or in lieu thereof.

 

Otherwise the procedure under article 74 takes weeks.

[Lang Bar]

Rule 74 of the SFL constitution suggests that it's only a 66% majority that is needed for rule changes so no idea where the 50% amount has come from.

 

Sounds like media spin.

 

Aye but also look at rule 43. It's a bit confusing but could be considered that The SFL Board can make up any rule that they want.

The 66% is for a rule change proposed by a member, as I said rule 43 seems to offer " The Board " the opportunity to overide any timescales voting ratios etc.

It does say in the constitution however that any vote will be a secret ballot and that EVERY club must vote. Clubs that did not vote would be subject to disciplinary procedures.

Quite how they would know in a secret ballot who had submitted a clean sheet of paper beats me.

 

I don't see anywhere though that a blank vote counts as a yes or no, so for me a blank vote would work against admittance of the hun.

[StandFree_MainStand]

I might be talking rubbish, but why was Doncaster even at the meeting today? I thought it was a general meeting for the SFL...

 

They are meeting to discuss the consequences of a Newco application to the SFL (i.e. 1st or 3rd div). The whole reason this has come about is because the clubs of the SPL have basically said no chance to Rangers in the spl - so washing their hands of the situation.

 

If SPL say no, the matter is passed to the SFL

 

Why does Neil Doncaster - chief executive of the SPL - have anything to do with this meeting today??

[Lang Bar]

Alex Tommo.

 

BOOM!

 

Quite lame blog to be honest. Not telling us anything that would surprise us.

Slow news day surely.

[ninja-lewis]

Aye but also look at rule 43. It's a bit confusing but could be considered that The SFL Board can make up any rule that they want.

The 66% is for a rule change proposed by a member, as I said rule 43 seems to offer " The Board " the opportunity to overide any timescales voting ratios etc.

It does say in the constitution however that any vote will be a secret ballot and that EVERY club must vote. Clubs that did not vote would be subject to disciplinary procedures.

Quite how they would know in a secret ballot who had submitted a clean sheet of paper beats me.

 

I don't see anywhere though that a blank vote counts as a yes or no, so for me a blank vote would work against admittance of the hun.

All of voting majorities are clearly stated as a majority of members, not members voting. So that is ordinarily 30 members unless there associate members who don't get a vote or in this case there is a vacancy in the league.

 

So even if 14 clubs abstained, the other 16 would still be required to vote Yes otherwise the motion fails.

[Lang Bar]

I might be talking rubbish, but why was Doncaster even at the meeting today? I thought it was a general meeting for the SFL...

 

They are meeting to discuss the consequences of a Newco application to the SFL (i.e. 1st or 3rd div). The whole reason this has come about is because the clubs of the SPL have basically said no chance to Rangers in the spl - so washing their hands of the situation.

 

If SPL say no, the matter is passed to the SFL

 

Why does Neil Doncaster - chief executive of the SPL - have anything to do with this meeting today??

 

He could be an associate member.

He could take part in debate but not vote.

[Lang Bar]

All of voting majorities are clearly stated as a majority of members, not members voting. So that is ordinarily 30 members unless there associate members who don't get a vote or in this case there is a vacancy in the league.

 

So even if 14 clubs abstained, the other 16 would still be required to vote Yes otherwise the motion fails.

 

I don't see that anywhere it says anything about a simple majority. Point me to the rule number.

Nae saying you are wrang but some rules appear to contradict others.

[At The Border Guy]

Quite lame blog to be honest. Not telling us anything that would surprise us.

Slow news day surely.

 

Er... Seriously? It's been confirmed that the Presidents of the SFA and SFL have long-term financial interests in Rangers! It might not be suprising, but it's a pretty big story!

[tup]

Plus, the biggest shareholding belongs to the chairman of Cowdenbeath, who currently have not abstained from voting, and whose chairman is openly contemptuous of even being asked about a conflict of interest.

 

Findlay should be banned from Scottish football in any case.

 

He's a domestic De Stefano, reduced to defending paedos and rapists and ostracised from mainstream society.

[dj_bollocks]

Sickening is what it is...

[Lang Bar]

Er... Seriously? It's been confirmed that the Presidents of the SFA and SFL have long-term financial interests in Rangers! It might not be suprising, but it's a pretty big story!

 

Are you being serious like?

You are suprised that the guys in question have interests in huns?

AT even tells you that the amounts of shares they have in huns are within the rules as in the sfa handbook.

[Bobby Connor]

Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase

Campbell Ogilvie: a living symbol of a game in which rules and fairness play no role.

[ninja-lewis]

I don't see that anywhere it says anything about a simple majority. Point me to the rule number.

Nae saying you are wrang but some rules appear to contradict others.

I was just using the simple majority as an example.

 

In a 30 member vote scenario:

 

If it's 66%, then 20 clubs must vote affirmatively. Even if the other 10 don't vote or turn up.

 

If it's 75%, then 23 clubs must vote affirmatively. Even if the other 7 don't vote or turn up.

 

If 11 or 8 respectively didn't vote or turn up, the motion must fail - even if 100% of the votes cast were in favour.

 

(In fact the only 50% majority in the SFL constitution is actually of votes cast but then the only 50% majority is for electing officials to the board. A 50% majority has been used when admitting clubs previously, in very different circumstances, but this is not mentioned in the constitution. Frankly there is absolutely no provision for a 50% majority in any vote by the member clubs - it is either 66%, 75% or 95% (the latter is to bring the AGM forward).

[Bobby Connor]

alex thomson ‏@alextomo

So Companies House shows that Scottish FA Pres Campbell Ogilvie had several thousand Rangers shares - passed to wife wn he became Hearts MD

 

Get this cunt to fuck.

[Lang Bar]

I was just using the simple majority as an example.

 

In a 30 member vote scenario:

 

If it's 66%, then 20 clubs must vote affirmatively. Even if the other 10 don't vote or turn up.

 

If it's 75%, then 23 clubs must vote affirmatively. Even if the other 7 don't vote or turn up.

 

If 11 or 8 respectively didn't vote or turn up, the motion must fail - even if 100% of the votes cast were in favour.

 

(In fact the only 50% majority in the SFL constitution is actually of votes cast but then the only 50% majority is for electing officials to the board. A 50% majority has been used when admitting clubs previously, in very different circumstances, but this is not mentioned in the constitution. Frankly there is absolutely no provision for a 50% majority in any vote by the member clubs - it is either 66%, 75% or 95% (the latter is to bring the AGM forward).

 

Fair enough. You appear to have some knowlege of this, and suggest that 50% has been used for admitting clubs previously, and that you are aware wht the circumstances were.

Are you a journo or someone with SFL connections?

[Bobby Connor]

Rangers Tax-Case ‏@rangerstaxcase

@alextomo Passing them to his wife is worse than holding them. It shows that he was aware that there was a problem.

[K-9]

So it seems SFL clubs will vote next week. SPL offering million quid of TV money as sweetener. How can this be without SPL clubs voting to accept this?

[ninja-lewis]

Fair enough. You appear to have some knowlege of this, and suggest that 50% has been used for admitting clubs previously, and that you are aware wht the circumstances were.

Are you a journo or someone with SFL connections?

Neither. Just an Aberdeen fan using publicly available information.

 

The SFL Constitution is on their website. Likewise the SPL and SFA and their articles of association.

 

The procedures regarding how Gretna, Annan, Peterhead et al were admitted were all reported at the time. They had to meet the criteria and had to submit information to show they weren't going to collapse in a few years. To be admitted a club needed more than 50% of the votes but since there were multiple clubs applying, they usually needed a couple of rounds of voting until a club received 50% of the vote.

 

But those were very different circumstances to Sevco. Not least in that there appears to be no attempt at the moment to allow other clubs to apply for the vacancy. It is "Sevco or nothing" and Sevco don't meet the criteria (unlike Spartans and other potential applicants).

[Bobby Connor]

So it seems SFL clubs will vote next week. SPL offering million quid of TV money as sweetener. How can this be without SPL clubs voting to accept this?

 

Executive decision by a certain N. Doncwanker.

[K-9]

Executive decision by a certain N. Doncwanker.

A decision he has no authority to make.

 

Simply this must have already been discussed by clubs and if it hasn't then he should be run out of town by SPL chairmen tomorrow.

[Bobby Connor]

A decision he has no authority to make.

 

Simply this must have already been discussed by clubs and if it hasn't then he should be run out of town by SPL chairmen tomorrow.

 

Discussed between him and Lawelll of Celtic I reckon. Complete carve up.

[Coopy100]

This is turning into even more of a farce than I thought the incompetents at the top of the game could make it. Delayed votes, not even understanding their own articles and decisions seemingly made on an ad hock and arbitrary basis all to suit one fucking club. And the folk at the top of the game wonder why so many fans have done walking away.

[Bobby Connor]

This is turning into even more of a farce than I thought the incompetents at the top of the game could make it. Delayed votes, not even understanding their own articles and decisions seemingly made on an ad hock and arbitrary basis all to suit one fucking club. And the folk at the top of the game wonder why so many fans have done walking away.

 

It's utterly mad. The right thing to do is so simple but they are making a horses arse out of it.

[Bobby Connor]

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant

SFL rules don't state how abstentions are dealt with in need for majority vote, as they are supposed to be forbidden.

 

[dj_bollocks]

Sportsound's on in a minute... might get something interesting out of it... or not...

[V for Vendetta]

I might be talking rubbish, but why was Doncaster even at the meeting today? I thought it was a general meeting for the SFL...

 

They are meeting to discuss the consequences of a Newco application to the SFL (i.e. 1st or 3rd div). The whole reason this has come about is because the clubs of the SPL have basically said no chance to Rangers in the spl - so washing their hands of the situation.

 

If SPL say no, the matter is passed to the SFL

 

Why does Neil Doncaster - chief executive of the SPL - have anything to do with this meeting today??

 

My guess is because he is the shit stirring, scare mongering, fucktard looking after the interests Sevco 5088 in all this and he will no doubt be presenting to the SFL Clubs some unlikely tails of woe if they don't do exactly what the defunct-but-still-in-power Rangers want, when they want.

 

So it seems SFL clubs will vote next week. SPL offering million quid of TV money as sweetener. How can this be without SPL clubs voting to accept this?

 

No one knows as has been debated since that document was "leaked". Its all very strange but as you say how can any financial incentive be offered without the co-operation of the SPL clubs to approve it?

[Bobby Connor]

Who is on tonight? I'm desperatley missing Billy Dodds. Jim Traynor and that other cunt.