The rulebook for 12-12-18 is in place as it's been worked on for months.
Everything is ready, delaying for a year wont change anything apart for those currently in SFL1 losing out on tens of thousands of extra prize money.
It seems David Longmuir is now against the plan he helped put forward which has caused the lower league clubs to change their mind. Question is why? What has changed in the last 8 weeks?
Exactly, what has changed, have certain promises been made by an associate member?
Have relegation, then, to whatever will sit below the 18.
But to have a mechanism of jumping straight from the fourth tier to the second is ludicrous.
I disagee.
Certainly not saying any automatic promotion, but I would at least put the 3rd division champions into play-offs for a secind tier place. Or something like wolvesdavid set out.
The rulebook for 12-12-18 is in place as it's been worked on for months.
Everything is ready, delaying for a year wont change anything apart for those currently in SFL1 losing out on tens of thousands of extra prize money.
It seems David Longmuir is now against the plan he helped put forward which has caused the lower league clubs to change their mind. Question is why? What has changed in the last 8 weeks?
Did they / have they since made clear how these two additional second tier places are to be filled ?
I'm confused about the Rangers situation. Is Rangers essentially a new company or are they the same club they always were? What does newco mean?
Depends who you beleive, those who hate rangers (90% of this thread), will say rangers died, and this is a new club, as club = company, so they have no history and are a new club.
Others say that the company owning rangers disolved, but the clubs assets including history, stadium, players etc were purchased by another company, that is who own rangers today.
It will never be agreed upon, the best way to tell is to check with governing bodies as to wether it is the same club or not.
i think they all agree is is the same club, but who knows.
as far as i am concerned they are the same, most here disagree.
Depends who you beleive, those who hate rangers (90% of this thread), will say rangers died, and this is a new club, as club = company, so they have no history and are a new club
Wouldn't want anyone to think that some folk have a persecution complex
It of course being quite impossible that many of those folk are not Rangers haters, but simply expressing their opinion.
And of course, anyway, you can hate Rangers and still give an unbiased opinion on a matter. Really
Wouldn't want anyone to think that some folk have a persecution complex
It of course being quite impossible that many of those folk are not Rangers haters, but simply expressing their opinion.
But, yes, it will never really be agreed upon.
Well, rangers are a club that they apparently have no interest in, yet every story is dredged up by them provided a negative spin can be applied to it, silly nick names given to rangers associated people, some on here openly admit that they have no real interest in scottish football, they only post here because they detest rangers, that says a lot to me.
Well, rangers are a club that they apparently have no interest in, yet every story is dredged up by them provided a negative spin can be applied to it, silly nick names given to rangers associated people, some on here openly admit that they have no real interest in scottish football, they only post here because they detest rangers, that says a lot to me.
But yes, this will run for decades IMO.
Just beware lumping everyone under the same flag.
Once you decide that every negative view re Rangers is because of Rangers hate and every negative Celtic view is because of Celtic hate, what's the point..
Of course there are many here with an agenda ( against both of the Old Firm ) but there also folk just expressing honest opinions.
Once you decide that every negative view re Rangers is because of Rangers hate and every negative Celtic view is because of Celtic hate, what's the point..
Of course there are many here with an agenda, but there also folk just expressing honest opinions.
Oh i dont believe everyone here has an agenda, some are, like you say simply giving opinion, however there are a very vocal few who use this forum as a outlet for their anti rangers spiel, they know rangers inside and out, and given the level of detail they can go into are up to date on a minute to minute basis of all rangers related facts, they are obsessed.
Theres also the few trolls that post things they find amusing for the sole purpose of causing annoyance to rangers fans.
I post now and again, to bring some balance to this one sided thread, i wouldnt want outsiders wandering in and thinking that because 90% of the thread is saying rangers are a different club with no titles that cheated their way to where they are, that they are.
Depends who you beleive, those who hate rangers (90% of this thread), will say rangers died, and this is a new club, as club = company, so they have no history and are a new club.
Others say that the company owning rangers disolved, but the clubs assets including history, stadium, players etc were purchased by another company, that is who own rangers today.
It will never be agreed upon, the best way to tell is to check with governing bodies as to wether it is the same club or not.
i think they all agree is is the same club, but who knows.
as far as i am concerned they are the same, most here disagree.
That word 'hate' used again. The words 'hate' and 'bigotry' have been thrown about on here regularly, yet I have never seen any evidence of this 'hate' or 'bigotry'.
There was a club called Rangers, formed in 1872, but they no longer exists.
A new club were shoved into the third division at the start of this season, at the expense of other, older, clubs such as Spartans.
This new club won their first trophy at the weekend.
That's where agenda comes in
Whatever one thinks of Rangers status after the liquidation, most right thinking folk would think it only sensible that in their new guise they should still be part of the main Scottish football setup, even if that meant starting in the fourth tier.
It is quite ludicrous to suggest that such a club with such a fan base should be left outwith the league setup in favour of say Spartans.
Whatever one thinks of Rangers status after the liquidation, most right thinking folk would think it only sensible that in their new guise they should still be part of the main Scottish football setup, even if that meant starting in the fourth tier.
It is quite ludicrous to suggest that such a club with such a fan base should be left outwith the league setup in favour of say Spartans.
Why? If Bill gates with all his billions started a new club with a new stadium should they get automatic entry to the football league or should they have to go through the same process as anyone else?
Comments
No, 'pedantic' isn't the word.
Actually it's neither. I don't consider it a 55th title and nor does the club. It's not a national championship but a lower-league win.
To give some point and incentive to 3rd division teams.
Are they just meant to play out a season for the hell of it with no purpose whatsoever ?
I think you'll find they were proven guilty.
Exactly, what has changed, have certain promises been made by an associate member?
Another club statement asking what has changed http://www.peterheadfc.com/news/605-club-statement-league-reconstruction
But to have a mechanism of jumping straight from the fourth tier to the second is ludicrous.
I disagee.
Certainly not saying any automatic promotion, but I would at least put the 3rd division champions into play-offs for a secind tier place. Or something like wolvesdavid set out.
Did they / have they since made clear how these two additional second tier places are to be filled ?
Others say that the company owning rangers disolved, but the clubs assets including history, stadium, players etc were purchased by another company, that is who own rangers today.
It will never be agreed upon, the best way to tell is to check with governing bodies as to wether it is the same club or not.
i think they all agree is is the same club, but who knows.
as far as i am concerned they are the same, most here disagree.
Wouldn't want anyone to think that some folk have a persecution complex
It of course being quite impossible that many of those folk are not Rangers haters, but simply expressing their opinion.
And of course, anyway, you can hate Rangers and still give an unbiased opinion on a matter. Really
But, yes, it will never really be agreed upon.
But yes, this will run for decades IMO.
Just beware lumping everyone under the same flag.
Once you decide that every negative view re Rangers is because of Rangers hate and every negative Celtic view is because of Celtic hate, what's the point..
Of course there are many here with an agenda ( against both of the Old Firm ) but there also folk just expressing honest opinions.
Oh i dont believe everyone here has an agenda, some are, like you say simply giving opinion, however there are a very vocal few who use this forum as a outlet for their anti rangers spiel, they know rangers inside and out, and given the level of detail they can go into are up to date on a minute to minute basis of all rangers related facts, they are obsessed.
Theres also the few trolls that post things they find amusing for the sole purpose of causing annoyance to rangers fans.
I post now and again, to bring some balance to this one sided thread, i wouldnt want outsiders wandering in and thinking that because 90% of the thread is saying rangers are a different club with no titles that cheated their way to where they are, that they are.
Rangers were liquidated; The Rangers took up a place in SFL3.
That word 'hate' used again. The words 'hate' and 'bigotry' have been thrown about on here regularly, yet I have never seen any evidence of this 'hate' or 'bigotry'.
There was a club called Rangers, formed in 1872, but they no longer exists.
A new club were shoved into the third division at the start of this season, at the expense of other, older, clubs such as Spartans.
This new club won their first trophy at the weekend.
Or rather, it's a bit silly for people to ignore the facts and claim that opinion is divided.
That's where agenda comes in
Whatever one thinks of Rangers status after the liquidation, most right thinking folk would think it only sensible that in their new guise they should still be part of the main Scottish football setup, even if that meant starting in the fourth tier.
It is quite ludicrous to suggest that such a club with such a fan base should be left outwith the league setup in favour of say Spartans.
Why? If Bill gates with all his billions started a new club with a new stadium should they get automatic entry to the football league or should they have to go through the same process as anyone else?
Moreover, they are widely regarded as the same club and so those trying to deny it are ultimately wasting their time.