Jump to content

Sevco Thread


Recommended Posts


A lot of them played over the weekend in a friendly.

 

They'll have been played as trialists.

 

And the league rules in the Scottish lower divisions means that they can play 2 (or perhaps it is 3) trialists in any game. Meaning that some of the pre-contract players will play for them before September 1.

Link to comment

Pre-contracts is my understanding.

 

Sign all these cunts but they can't play them and pay them until September 1st.

 

Basically, they found a very obvious loophole.

 

Transfer embargo should mean just that. No transfer dealings allowed whatsoever.

 

Doesn't make sense though still - I reckon they may be heading for an all might c&&k-up - BE extremely funny if it happens

 

The SFA rules state that

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing provision,

a professional Player who has failed to find employment during a registration period

may sign and be registered for a Club outwith the Registration Periods.

 

I'm struggling to see how they can be said to have failed to find employment when they are being used in promotional material and being played this early in the pre season. They may play them as trialists as is within the rules - it will be very interesting to see if they manage to actually register them come the 1st september as they don't seem to meet the criteria.

 

If rangers have made any payment to them outside expenses then they are clearly in employment in a registration period

Link to comment

 

 

Doesn't make sense though still - I reckon they may be heading for an all might c&&k-up - BE extremely funny if it happens

 

The SFA rules state that

 

Notwithstanding the foregoing provision,

a professional Player who has failed to find employment during a registration period

may sign and be registered for a Club outwith the Registration Periods.

 

I'm struggling to see how they can be said to have failed to find employment when they are being used in promotional material and being played this early in the pre season. They may play them as trialists as is within the rules - it will be very interesting to see if they manage to actually register them come the 1st september as they don't seem to meet the criteria.

 

If rangers have made any payment to them outside expenses then they are clearly in employment in a registration period

The rangers.

Link to comment

Also on the BBC 'SPL' page:

 

Posted Image

 

Yes, a story about Partick Thistle & Dundee Utd making history by competing in the first ever SPFL match, comes under the headline of 'Rangers' for some reason. WTF?

 

Although to be fair, the zombies are given a mention in the 3rd paragraph... for some reason.

Link to comment

There's a shock.

 

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/rangers-sfa-to-make-no-further-ibrox-probe-1-3003679

 

THE SFA have told Rangers the rangers that the ruling body won’t be launching a further enquiry into last year’s takeover of the club by the consortium fronted by Charles Green.

Revelations of taped conversations between discredited former owner Craig Whyte with Green and business partner Imran Ahmad prompted then chairman Malcolm Murray to commission an independent investigation of that buy-out by law firm Pinsent Mason.

Although their report cleared Green (who stood down as chief executive in April) and Ahmad (removed as finance director at Ibrox the same month) SFA CEO Stewart Regan claimed in May that they may launch their own investigation. “We have asked a number of specific questions relating to what went on in the period leading up to liquidation and the period surrounding the transfer of membership,” he said. “There are some very specific questions we have asked that require some very specific answers. If we don’t get those answers, we reserve the right to further investigation.

“The nature of the questions we have asked relate to the links between Green, Ahmad and Whyte, the details surrounding money that was lodged in Ahmad’s mother’s bank account and various conversations that allegedly took place.”

However, it emerged last night that the SFA have decided that there is no case for Green and Ahmad to answer. On the basis of the evidence they have seen from the Pinsent Mason findings, they have ruled that there is no requirement for the issue to be referred to compliance officer Vincent Lunny.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...