Celtic Rumours Archive May 06 2012

 

Use our rumours form to send us celtic transfer rumours.

06 May 2012 23:00:01
As its Sunday evening and it seems to be the big talking point...I think I need someone to explain to me what this American's guys all about.

If his plan is to move all rangers assets to a new rangers and arrange a CVA for the existing one and then merge them..why does he have to move anything if the creditors agree a CVA ? Or is that all a bluff, does he know there's no chance of a CVA ? Just wondering lol

Mrs E

Believable4 Unbelievable2

It's fairly simple the way he's doing it - straight forward assets purchase, doesn't need any agreement from CW, HMRC, ticketus and others - can be done quite quickly allowing him to stabilise player contracts and make plans for next year.

Following on with a second stage CVA should be successful, but with unknown costs (BTC) being added into the mix at some point and lots of to ing and fro ing with ticketus lawyers vs CW and administrators legal vs CW & Collyer B etc. Assuming people aren't going to be bloody minded about it in the end, the stock should be available for post CVA merger.

In short, the CVA is going to be a bit like herding cats, doing a 'pure CVA' route whilst trying to hold the club together would be nigh impossible.

BM put some thought into this and has come up with the cleanest allround solution. {Ed007's Note - How is it a straight forward asset purchase that doesn't need an agreement with CW, he owns 85% of Rangers and it's assets. You can't just forget he, HMRC or Ticketus exist.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Okay then...how will they 'pay' the CVA if the existing rangers have no income ? I assume any money would now be getting paid into the newco ? Particulary if the BTC has the worst possible outcome. A CVA can be 20p in the ..20% of over 100 million of a lot of money.

Stablise players contracts, is this assuming new players or do you think they will all transfer considering the mucking about this season ? Mrs E

Agree0 Disagree0

"You can't just forget he, HMRC or Ticketus exist."

Of course you can! Its insolvency practice law, Administrators get the best price they can for the assets on behalf of all the creditors. They can even ignore CW's floating charge - that comes out of the CVA pot as well. May sound odd but it's the law. {Ed007's Note - So why did nobody else come up with this? So when the CVA is sorted CW owns 85% of what will be a debt free original Rangers, that seems a good deal getting the American and Zombie Rangers to pay off all his debt and then step in to claim his shares.}

Agree0 Disagree0

"how will they 'pay' the CVA if the existing rangers have no income"

Not sure what you mean? oldco by next week should have no assets other than 11.2m cash in the bank. CVA comes out of that.

Player contracts will be transferred (those that want to) and begin to be paid by newco - usual for newco to recompense employees reduction in salary immediately as token of good will, although they don't have to, its an oldco debt. {Ed007's Note - I think you will find that 11.2 million going into the oldco bank account will be classed as an asset. If the investment is going into the oldco for the CVA then where is the money coming from to start and run Zombie Rangers, the money owed to player's as deferred wages or do you think players and their agents will allow the owed money to be part of a CVA?}

Agree0 Disagree0

Jeessoo that's a fair bit if info there n that not even 1% of it overall really, crazy stuff. Mrs E one thing I would say is pretty certain is there will be a mass exodus come summer. These guys won't be sticking about to find out what's happening I'm pretty sure if that, Mind they've all taken hefty pay cuts so they'll all be looking for new clubs (mugs) to pay their overpaid shocking fkn pay! Wonder if that fkn d1ck laffatme will get his stars removed now eh? I'd help I've got some sand paper he he!
Fb77 {Ed007's Note - It wasn't wage cuts, it was wage deferrals, the players are owed the money.}

Agree0 Disagree0

"the money owed to player's as deferred wages or do you think players and their agents will allow the owed money to be part of a CVA?"

It's up to them, like I said, it is usual for the newco to pay back pay immediately as a token of goodwil, if the player transfers over (incentive). If not, the player stays with oldco and becomes one of the creditors. {Ed007's Note - So any transfer fee goes to the oldco, CW's company?}

Agree0 Disagree0

"I think you will find that 11.2 million going into the oldco bank account will be classed as an asset"

Of course it is, what else would it be? {Ed007's Note - As soon as that 11.2 million hits the bank any number of creditors can freeze or ring fence it....even Craig Whyte as the owner of 85% of that 11.2 million, it is in an account and an asset of a company he owns.}

Agree0 Disagree0

Surely if he transfers all the assets to a newco and leaves the 11million in the old co then if creditors refuse a cva then he will liquidate and all the assets is the 11illion? Practicably forcing creditors to accept {Ed007's Note - Or they could all g to court to fight over the total 11.2 million.}

Agree0 Disagree0

If administrators are looking for the best price for the assets is that not more commonly known as liquidating the assets ?

I mean a CVA still has to be paid, usually a monthly amount over a certain length of time. Look at the debts of other SPL clubs and Celtic are well run but have just broken even this year..how will he run the newco then as Ed has pointed out ? Does he not want a profit..Mrs E

Agree0 Disagree0

"So why did nobody else come up with this? So when the CVA is sorted CW owns 85% of what will be a debt free original Rangers"

Yes, 85% of a Rangers with 0 assets and no debts. Or in other words 85% of nothing. {Ed007's Note - But there is 11.2 million in the account of the oldco, an asset in itself as you say. Once the CVA is paid he can name his price, the CVA which he won't even have to pay, Zombie Rangers have sorted that out for him, so for his 1 investment he owns 85% of the 'original' Rangers, with no debt and he will just donate this......?}

Agree0 Disagree0

"So any transfer fee goes to the oldco, CW's company?"

You're talking about players that don't transfer I think. Weren't transfer fees waved in exchange for reductions in wages paid for 3months (variations in their contracts)? all a bit messy - would expect oldco to make them redundant if they don't transfer - but upto administrators. {Ed007's Note - Wages were deferred and release clauses agreed, where does the release clause money go to if the clause is triggered....Say 1.5 million for McGregor? Would that go to the oldco and the CVA and pay off Whyte's company's debt quicker or would it just show as a profit for Whyte's company?}

Agree0 Disagree0

"there is 11.2 million in the account of the oldco, an asset in itself as you say"

There may be money in the account but the administrators are in control of that, and will use it to pay out penny in the pound the considerable company debt, either by CVA with CW's agreement or by liquidation (disolving the company) without. Creditors should be paid out the same either way. {Ed007's Note - How long will the administrators be in charge of this account for, what are they charging for the service and where will that money come from to pay them, look at the money they have got already from Rangers. So you do admit that liquidation of the original Rangers company is possible? No more Rangers, history etc. Which would make the incubation process pointless in the first place. Couldn't they liquidate just now and save themselves 11.2 million?}

Agree0 Disagree0

If it is the administrators duty to get the best price for assets, then why are they not sold on the open market, got to be worth more than 11M

Agree0 Disagree0

Couldn't they liquidate just now and save themselves 11.2 million

No they couldn't. All the bif boys are waiting for liquidation. One the assets go into a liquidation sale then hard cash comes out and it will likely raise a lot more that a derisory 11million.

The Creditors are not obliged to accept a CVA and with out that agreement then this transfer will be challenged in court. If that happens (and assuming Bill does not walk away there and then) the assets can be placed under a court injunction pending the out come of the VERY long court case. And so Ibrox can not be sold OR USED, same for Murrey Park and the Albion Carpark. God only knows what happens to players contracts. And this could go on for years.

If this goes ahead without being challended by HMRC, then HMRC will have been stymied by political interferrance and if that lid is opened then its a whole new can of worms.

Agree0 Disagree0

"If this goes ahead without being challended by HMRC, then HMRC will have been stymied by political interferrance and if that lid is opened then its a whole new can of worms."

Not quite correct, if HMRC are stymied by anything - it will be insolvency law.

Agree0 Disagree0

Hi Ed. I am replying to a previous question you put to me on this thread as it is on the same subject. The only feasible way Miller can go ahead with this and make it work for me is if he has already discussed it and came to an agreement with Whyte. Otherwise, as you say, once the cva is completed, allowing the merger, then unless he has agreed something Craig Whyte must surely be back in overall control of a unified debt free Rangers? I cannot work out any other explanation. I have not been able to believe a word which has came out of the man's mouth so far but two quotes are sticking in my head just now: Rangers will come out of this process stronger and he will be back in charge of Rangers once this is all sorted. But then I thought he was banned for life from running a Scottish football club so what would he do? Stay as a silent majority partner and withdraw a hefty wage every month? This fiasco reminds me of Lost. Just when you thought you were getting somewhere with it and finally working out some of the answers: BAM the plot changes again and you are left with even more questions than you began with. I hope the finale of this debacle is better than the finale of Lost was. What a let down and I was one of the ones that expectantly got up at silly o'clock in the morning to watch it, lol!

Brian {Ed007's Note - I know what thread you mean. I totally agree with you Brian. The OP stated though:

'It's fairly simple the way he's doing it - straight forward assets purchase, doesn't need any agreement from CW, HMRC, ticketus and others - can be done quite quickly allowing him to stabilise player contracts and make plans for next year.'

Without Craig Whyte's agreement or involvement I can't see how BM's plan can possibly work.}

Agree0 Disagree0

"So you do admit that liquidation of the original Rangers company is possible?"

Definitely, all depends how keen CW is to hang on to 85% of nothing. BM gambling he can get them off him, if not, well he tried and CW killed oldco Rangers not him. TBK not so sure, so didn't go down this route. {Ed007's Note - But you have previously stated CW's involvement isn't required and all this can be done without his agreement?

'It's fairly simple the way he's doing it - straight forward assets purchase, doesn't need any agreement from CW, HMRC, ticketus and others - can be done quite quickly allowing him to stabilise player contracts and make plans for next year.'

And holding onto 85% of nothing for a few years, while someone pays off it's debts and bring it back as a solvent and debt free company will appeal very highly to CW after his initial investment of 1, he will have made what he has by not paying bills, the incubated company isn't costing him a dime and someone else is repairing it financially, which when done he will own 85% of. Seems like a good deal to me.}

Agree0 Disagree0

"No more Rangers, history etc. "

History isn't really something you can buy, it just is. When BM buys the assets he will add the words 'and History', nobody will object as it isn't really anything tangible and therefor no one will complain about it.

So he will claim he has it anyway - he bought it- getting CW's shares just makes it unarguable. {Ed007's Note - Of course history is something you can buy or BM wouldn't be investing 11.2 to incubate a company to preserve and maintain it's existence. If you think adding the words 'and history' would find no objections then you are deluded.}

Agree0 Disagree0

ED007; It's impossible to get through to some of these people mate.Just read all the exchanges between you and the poster and what you say is perfectly right.This is a stealth liquidation,a couple of months and the line will be "we had no option,but look we saved the club".This is assuming Miller actually steps up,i for one dont think he will.For me he is a Whyte man making sure liquidation happens..........green jhedi

Agree0 Disagree0

"If you think adding the words 'and history' would find no objections then you are deluded."

Who do you think will object? Administrators are selling off everything for best price - deal will not fall apart because of the words 'and history'. HMRC, ticketus just wont cash money, why would they object? Seriously, it has no value to the money guys, it makes no difference to anybody 'deal'. {Ed007's Note - Zombie Rangers would not just be allowed to to say 'and history'. What you are saying is that BM would be buying original Rangers 'and history' from CW's now solvent oldco to merge with his Zombie Rangers and say 'Right then, that's us just bought 54 league titles, get the T-shirts printed up' and from now on we are called Zombie Rangers and history FC'?}

Agree0 Disagree0

BM is an outsider and probably less sentimental about the fact Rangers have won more league championships the celtic than us.

With his plan he can get CW's shares, but if he doesn't, well, he's not that bothered he still has the name, players, Ibrox and a place in the SPL probably more interested in the future than the past. He's definitely not paying 11.2million for 'history'. {Ed007's Note - So what is he paying it for? If the history is not that important then why pay 11.2 million to incubate a company and preserve it's history? D&P seem to think the history of the club is very important, they used BMs ability to preserve it as a 'selling point' when announcing BM as preferred bidder. Then in a few years he will have to spend more in buying the incubated company from CW after it becomes solvent again, a company he has paid 11.2 million to return to solvency and now needs to pay again to own it, doesn't make good business sense to me. }

Agree0 Disagree0

"Zombie Rangers would not just be allowed to to say 'and history'

You keep saying this, but why? nobody on the 'selling' side cares. CW doesn't get say, Admins would sell him the air trophy room if he wanted it, means nothing to HMRC and ticketus. Who that actually gets a say in the deal cares??

Come on think of someone. {Ed007's Note - Craig Whyte will care, he owns it. Past creditors would surely look at why they had to accept a CVA and lose revenue and now a solvent company has claimed association with the now solvent again incubated company. So out of the deal the only people losing money is creditors. I think creditors of the magnitude of HMRC and Ticketus would be very interested and would have some objections to this.}

Agree0 Disagree0

'Yes, 85% of a Rangers with 0 assets and no debts. Or in other words 85% of nothing'

I think you'll find this will be worth money to an unscupulous man like CW..this is what the fans want to hang onto. This is very reason behind BM's bid to avoid liquidation and merge the company, this is what they all want..their 'history' retained. CW could name his price.

Mrs E

Agree0 Disagree0

Apologies ED007, that's just gibberish now. CW doesn't get a say. Admins can sell everything without CW.

In any event, that is not the primary plan, the CVA is, once shares reduced to zero, BM should be able to pick up CW's stock for nominal amount and merge newco & oldco. No reason 4 CW 2 hang on to them.

If it's any consolation in the press interview McCoist gave last week he didn't understand it either - the money men are sorting that out.

;) {Ed007's Note - Gibberish? It is you that has said CW doesn't have a say, then you agreed with me he would own 85% of a debt (CVA) clear oldco and now you are back to administrators can sell something without CW. While in between BM can buy CWs shares from him for a nominal fee. I think I know where the gibberish is coming from. Read back through the thread and see how many times you have contradicted yourself and backtracked on your guesswork and assumptions.}

Agree0 Disagree0

"CW could name his price"

Maybe to fans, but BM would tell him to get stuffed, he has everything he needs.

Agree0 Disagree0

He has everything he needs ?

FANS = INCOME

What exactly is 'everything he needs'. If the fans find out they have no history and this was in his plan..he runs the risk of them deserting the newco and taking their cash with them so what exactly is 'everything he needs' if its not oldco rangers and its 'history' ? Mrs E

Agree0 Disagree0

While the creditors can not challenge the transfer of assets directly, they can move to replace D&P if the think they are not acting in their best interests. Which amounts to the same thing. Also transfer of assets to an other company at below market value to protect from creditors is illegal.

More lawyers, sore delay, more confusion

This is not a done deal by a long chalk

Agree0 Disagree0

Not quite correct, if HMRC are stymied by anything - it will be insolvency law.

Bit of dead issue now but HMRC and Ticketus would be able to challenge the transfer of assets at below market value and a court can reverse the sale.

They may not succeed in that but there is no reason not to try other than.....?

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 22:54:48
celtic supporters convention in blackpool 2012 september weekend, spread the word bhoys and ghirls - @celticbhoy73 @celticconventio @celticghirl18

Believable2 Unbelievable3

Oh great,that's all I need ;-)

Mr.Roller Coaster {Ed007's Note - I thought you might be pleased with the news....how big is your house again ;-)

Agree0 Disagree0

Hi is this the same convension that took place in Santa Ponsa last year, I missed it by a week, what are the dates in Sep?

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 20:27:59
What time are the awards tonight Ed? {Ed007's Note - They are going on just now. Mulgrew got POTY, Forrest got YPOTY. Both of them, Hooper and Matthews in the TOTY and I Adams from Ross County got MOTY......}

Believable2 Unbelievable3

Celtic win the SPL for the first time since 2008 and Lennon doesn't get Manager of the year. Congratulations to Derek Adams though and also to Chico and Forrest

Agree0 Disagree0

Absolutely astounded that Joe Ledley is not in the team of the year! Bewildering!

Agree0 Disagree0

If Lenny wasn't up for the award i would've liked Adams to have got it anyway.Ross County unbeaten in league since August,some going.

Jungle Bhoy.

Agree0 Disagree0

No question Lenny has done a great job but Adams has definitely earned that one. How the hell was Davis in the team of the year ahead of Ledley or Brown? or Wanyama? mental.

Agree0 Disagree0

I said to my brother that there's no way Lenny will get it n there you go! After all he's been through he's still there n done the job! Okay the Ross county yep great run great going. I'm away to see what the full team is if we only had two in there I'm very interested to see the other 9?? Comment below regarding the team with Davis in it that was shocking by the guys own admission he's even stated he's not had a good season then he gets in that one? Mental! But there are SPL ones then there's the football writers one too! So well see how they've only manged to get two tims in it? Madness!

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 20:24:40
1st of be lated happy birhtday ed.

was at the game today & a few people have touch on a few points i want to bring up.

1) had loads of half chances but rather shooting they they passed!
2)really hate how stokes is always the one player who has to come off,hooper doesnt look intrested if he isnt in the box.
3)dont know if it was tiredness or couldnt be bothered but wouldnt give anyone bar mulgrew for pass marks.
4)see on th other page they said about our 'bigot' songs. i was next to the GB & think there was 6 people who done ohh aaa.... but thats always going to happen rather 6 that 600,would rather none of it but thats not going to happen at any ground.

any news on GK front ed ? the big man isnt for signing so move on time....

lenny {Ed007's Note - Thanks Lenny for the birthday wishes. I think the serious talks must have started with Forster, it is decision time with the season basically finished. I think it could depend on if Newcastle can keep Krul this summer.}

Believable0 Unbelievable0

1st of belated - we will not have to worry about our fans singing anything at away grounds next season if the newco is allowed to walk into the SPL we should all keep our monies in our pocket or visit any ground that votes against allowing the newco to walk straight back in!!

Agree0 Disagree0

Looked to me like they had a wee drink in preparation for tonights awards. The goalkeeping situation has to be resolved in the summer. Mrs E

Agree0 Disagree0

Stokes gets taken off because he is generally very poor, he missed another open goal just before the break today and contributed zero. He should be moved on in the summer

Agree0 Disagree0

Hooper is better off then stokes, as he makes runs even when no pass as well comes back and win the ball to pass to mids.saw him couple times at mid coming back. stokes only tries when he can take the ball and does it by himself, and what i hate the most is when somthing doesnt go his way he just stops and complains and puts his arms up, how many times this season could he have maybe won the ball back if he didnt just stop.

Agree0 Disagree0

Have to admit, I was watching the game on TV and 'Boys of the Old Brigade' was comming over loud and clear during the first half. The Celtic support have to cut it out or it's too easy (and justified!) to tar us with the same brush as the shambles accross the city.

Agree0 Disagree0

Behave yourself,stokes has been superb this season,i for one only hope he stays and plays in the BIG games next season j1mmysnakehips

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 19:45:54
when and how is the vote on newco and how do you all think it will go by club vote? {Ed007's Note - The meeting and vote is tomorrow (allegedly).}

Believable1 Unbelievable1

I hope we all note who votes for what and avoid the Clubs who support any move to allow the 'newco' to join the SPL.

Agree0 Disagree0

Expect all the clubs to fall in behind newco, it's going that way, why be the one to draw adverse attention.

Agree0 Disagree0

Aye youz do that, and maybe me and my brother can actually get to see some of the away games. Can never get a ticket for tynecastle, tannadice etc. I'll be supporting my club wherever they go no matter what. If you put ur thinking cap on mate. By the time this "boycott" happens the decision will have been made and there will be no way of changing it. So all you will be doing is leaving our players without they're 12th man at away games when we most need them. BELIEVE ME I'm not missing the point. I totally get why ur suggesting doing this it's just there are 2 different ways of looking at it. Anyways ur hearts in the right place and we all want the same things for our club so ur alright with me mate. Good luck anyways. Hail Hail

Agree0 Disagree0

Will the vote still go ahead on a bank holiday Ed ? Mrs E {Ed007's Note - Well they knew it was a bank holiday when they adjourned Mrs. Is this maybe women's intuition on another adjournment for a week seeing as D&P have said they hope a deal is concluded for the end of the week?}

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 19:44:59
Green Jhedi, I always like reading your posts (except negative CL one below) but I agree with you, Integrity must come before money in tomorrow's vote What surprises me is that Celtic and Lawwell have kept silent so long, we Celtic fans are calling on them for strong leadership, starting tomorrow. I think the Kilmarnock chairman is going to get a nasty surprise next season when all decent fans do not visit his tawdry club, if Celtic, Hibs, Aberdeen fans etc.. do not give his club any
home revenues, he will soon get the message.
But depending on the vote, I hope Celtic fans and fans of other SPL clubs deluge SFA, SPL and also UEFA with emails, letters even phone calls and make the decent, ordinary fans voices
heard. Timalloy

Believable6 Unbelievable2

I think people on here are missing the bug point about this vote tomorrow. It's not a vote to punish rangers. It will affect any team that goes into administration in the future and if rumours are to be believed then Kilmarnock would be one of them. Why would Johnsonvote yes for this? Rangers and Celtic would survive these punishments but noone else would.

Scottish football is dead whatever the result tomorrow.

Agree0 Disagree0

Well said Timalloy our three generations family of Celtic season ticket holders have decided to keep well away from any ground that has helped football cheats to survive in the SPL.

Agree0 Disagree0

My guess is there will be 5 votes yes + 5 no and will come down to how Celtic would vote.

Jungle Bhoy.

Agree0 Disagree0

"keep well away from any ground that has helped football cheats to survive in the SPL."

does that include celtic? expect lawwell to vote for newco.

Agree0 Disagree0

Lawell will definately vote against. Or at least Celtic's rep Eric Riley will. Definite.

Agree0 Disagree0

The whole debate is extremely eronneous. Today Peter Houston was justifying his position in supporting RFC newco rejoining the SPL as it would cost his club 600,000 per season and he is quoted as saying he does not care if the fans are unhappy with his comments. Back engineer this logic path and we find this stance to be highly immoral and IMHO bordering on criminal. He is basically saying I will support RFC and their inclusion in the SPL next season for a sizeable backhander. I sometimes wonder if people such as he in the game have any understanding of the moral and legal implications of their mutterings. An absolute scandal and disgrace on any level.Its a sorry day when supposed intelligent men make such utterances. We are truly on the road to perdition if the SPL fails to act with integrity. I also cannot see Uefa standing idly by if the SPL clubs fail to punish RFC for their outrageous and unlawful behaviour. I dont know whether I should laugh or cry! Sopot Celt

Agree0 Disagree0

Sopot Celt. I have had this debate repeatedly with Green Jhedi too. I don't expect a different response to GJ's here either but both sides of this 'moral' debate has to be heard, if only for the sake of objectivity. Moral and immoral actions aren't singular entities or purely as black and white as you suggest. I am essentially talking about cause and effect. Acting morally in response to the misdemeanour's of another may end up having adversely immoral consequences and implications. Peter Houston isn't taking an immoral stance from his perspective (neither are Johnston et al). He is supporting the only decision that is morally correct for his club. He is not saying that Rangers shouldn't be punished after all, which would definitely be an immoral stance in my opinion. Without this money his club may find itself in the same boat as Rangers (and Kilmarnock, Motherwell, and a few others if they choose to adversely punish their own clubs harder than Rangers ultimately would be as we would get back up through the divisions within a few years. Could they say the same?). Given THEIR moral duty to protect their own staff, fans, sponsors, surrounding businesses and their local community they cannot risk the possible liquidation of their own club (which has not caused the perilous situation in the first place remember) over the allegedly immoral actions of another. Rangers are still to be PROVEN guilty of the illegal use of EBT's and dual contracts remember, if that is the "outrageous and unlawful behaviour" your are referring to in terms of punishments. I am not saying that we won't be once the investigations are concluded, far from it, but I am reminding you that, from Peter Houston's perspective, the only immoral accusation that can be CURRENTLY directed at Rangers is in terms of their financial mismanagement and slide into administration - ironically the exact behaviour and consequence you are asking his own club to take. How immoral of you ;-).

On top of that. There is no precedent for, or rules currently in place, in relation to how the SPL should act if one of THEIR clubs enters liquidation and wishes to form a newco and re-enter the league, as the previous examples (Gretna, Airdrie, etc) were all in the SFL when liquidation occurred. Neil Doncaster was on the radio tonight confirming as much. Poor insight on behalf of the SPL to say the least but please bear in mind that your club is as complicit in this oversight as the other clubs are. Rangers have already received a 10 points deduction as Motherwell did previously for entering administration and additional sanctions will also be imposed depending upon the outcomes of the continuing investigations so morally punishments are/will be meted out (Rangers are not getting off scot free by any manner of means as some seem to be suggesting).

Furthermore, the SFL rules clearly dictate that if a member club enters liquidation and a newco is formed, then, if accepted, it must begin in the lowest possible division. How many divisions make up the SPL? One the last time I checked. Which means they only have three viable options as far as I can see: immediate expulsion from the league altogether with no chance of re-admittance into THEIR league as a newco (technically a harsher stance than the rules set out by the SFL by all accounts); re-admittance to the single league SPL with sanctions imposed, if accepted (the likely route everyone is up in arms about); or (I am unsure on the legality of this one but it would technically be feasible I would imagine) re-admittance followed by a backdated points deduction severe enough to relegate the club to the First Division in place of the bottom club - in this case Dunfermline (probably the most morally correct action to take as the clubs may manage to survive without the extra income for a year, assuming Rangers would immediately return to the top flight, without entering administration themselves.

It is not a backhander Peter Houston is looking for. It is called being financially astute, particularly during a period of financial austerity (as well as realistic). It is perfectly fine for the supporters of an admittedly well run and financially sound club such as Celtic to take the moral high ground and state that any chairman or manager of another club is acting immorally (I would still question whether they even are acting immorally personally) by refusing to accept that being complicit in their own potential demise is the correct way to deal with the situation they, through no fault of their own, find themselves in (it also helps immeasurably to have some genuine billionaires in the background - unfortunately Dundee United and the rest of the football clubs in Scotland are lacking in this department and have to remain in the real world sadly). You are safe from financial armageddon so you can argue that the other clubs are acting immorally and that you never would. I have no problem with that, you are not in that situation. Those without the comfort blanket of a sugar daddy (or an equally immoral 80% share of the league's overall income received by the Old Firm, which, incidentally, if shared equally since the introduction of the SPL may have resulted in the universal 'moral' stance you seem to crave so much) may have a different take on what is the morally correct course of action. If you supported Dundee United or Kilmarnock, for example, and FULLY understood the financial jeopardy that you would be placing your club in (I am aware of the survey overwhelmingly in favour of no re-admittance hence the emphasis on fully) I imagine your answer would be slightly different.

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

Brian I commend you on your thorough response and the obvious fact that not all RFC supporters are in fact thick as I had previously been led to conclude given many of the responses and posts from RFC fans on this site. My reply is going to be short. We have a different understanding of the terms moral and integrity, legal and criminal. My understanding of those terms wont change no matter how many tomes of type you produce; but please keep up the good work as its nice to have something worthy of reading from your side. Sopot Celt

Agree0 Disagree0

Cheers Sopot, I think! ;-).

You strike me as being an honest and principled person so I am expecting equally honest answers to a couple of direct questions instead of the usual political ones I have received so far which have body swerved answering the questions directly (not so much yourself per se but in general on this site - but we aren't in that position, hypothetical and would never happen, etc). I am asking them, hopefully in a humorous way, in the hope that you will at least concede how much is at stake for the provincial clubs here and admit that they are in an impossible position (through no fault of their own). I am not looking for, or expecting, anyone to say that I am right and everyone else is wrong on this issue. That is not the objective for me. The entire point is about showing that it is not as simple as 'doing the right thing' for these chairmen and managers and that until we are in their position we have no right to judge them if they vote the newco in.

The questions:

If you WERE (remember I am looking for honesty here) Peter Houston (Thompson would probably be a more realistic figure to use as he calls the shots but it was Houston who spoke out) and you knew that you would be threatening the very existence of your own club (fans, staff, local businesses, the list goes on and on and on and potentially adversely affects tens of thousands in the local communities) by voting to expel Rangers from the SPL, would you do it out of principle anyway and to hell with the consequences despite other options being available to you?

(Honestly?? Okay then.)

Secondly, if Celtic were where Dundee United are financially and your manager came out and voted to kill your club out of principle, despite Celtic not being responsible for the situation and the fact that other punishments could be handed out that wouldn't result in your club's demise, as a fan would you be happy about it and cheer him for his integrity or would your answer be different to the one you gave to the first question?



(COME ON, you're taking the proverbial now surely? No supporter in their right mind wants to see their club die because of someone else's mistakes do they? What? You do. Fair play then, enjoy your shopping with the Mrs at the weekend, lol! Yeah right!)

This is open to absolutely everyone (including the ed's). Funnily enough I am expecting a lot of "Ah, buts", "that's hypothetical and I am not going to answer it", etc (the usual political body swerving one does when the answer doesn't match the belief) or no further responses at all which would probably be even more damning. Lots of politicians on here in my opinion, prove me wrong. ;-)

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

I refer you to the answer I gave some moments ago. :) Sopot Celt.

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 16:31:11
Bhoys pointless game, I was more interested in man city game! Seriously give a f£ck were champs end of? But to my point if you've seen the Granada v Real Madrid game and eh...aftermath it was shocking! This was literally like watching some crazy columbian or Brazilian dodgy teams do their stuff! Honestly you need to see this the ref is pushed by about ten bug guys then one of them he sent off throws a plastic bottle at him, hitting him straight in the coupon!
Honestly it's pure nuts go n check it out. Even the game I've never seen a actual rugby tackle on a player for a pen just crazy then in the 94min this guy for some unknown reason just kicks the ball into his own net? Under no pressure at all!! If Lenny and fat Sally made the news this should most defo make it! Forget today bhoys just hope we get it together for the party next wkend! I've got ma ticket!! Ya dancer!
CB

Believable3 Unbelievable7

It would have been good to improve on last seasons points total and beat the record for goals scored - we now need six against Hearts to do that - so it was not an unimportant match and would have held great interest for most Celtic fans.

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 14:43:43
That was shocking today. Yet again when lenny asks for a performance he doesn't get it. Hooper just doesn't look interested unless he's in the box. Stokes is a joke. Commons needs to learn to stay on his feet. Really feel for brozek, our strikers need a kick up the a*se and he still ain't given a chance

Believable7 Unbelievable9

Calm down mate ,title won

Agree0 Disagree0

I'm not convinced with Lustig,he's the weak part of the team.Hope he has a good Euros and comes back a better player.

Jungle Bhoy.

Agree0 Disagree0

Easy tiger! League over,the kid Watt done okay when he came on...........green jhedi

Agree0 Disagree0

Referee was pathetic. I'm not talking about the penalty claim as it wasn't a pen but he got the basics wrong all day. Me and my brother stopped counting at 11 cos ot was winding us up so much. Constantly giving throw ins and free kicks against us to relieve the pressure on them. And tried to give them a goal when Rankin had a hold of Mathews boot so he couldn't get up to get the ball, he then let the play go with ranking running into the box and crossing. Too many really iffy looking decisions for me. Everytime they shouted for something they got it, he even overruled his linesman a few times regarding corners and throw ins in dangerous positions. We weren't good enough that's obvious, and he's not why we didn't win but he helped them a lot constantly relieving them of pressure. Stokes was a nightmare today. He would be better staying away from the 6 yard box as he always misses from that range. Thought Tony watt and Dylan McGeouch showed up well and mulgrew as always. But the rest were a bit flat, maybe tired. Anyways Ian Brines is a tool, but I'm sure u all knew that anyways. The most incompetent referee I have ever seen.

Agree0 Disagree0

Remember Micheal Duberry handball at St.Johnstone last year. Brines looked right at it and said no. Duberry slipped down on one knee in the 6 yard box, his hand landing flush on the ball. He then preceeded to push himself up with his hand still on the thing. Mate.......Ian Brines is the king of dubious decisions. And more often not they come against Celtic

Agree0 Disagree0

Your right on....the ref didnt make us lose, we were not up to par and dundee was playing for euopa, which it is a shame if they lose some of ther key players before that but it might help us out if they join us.
i wonder just how many free kicks we got or even reg calls, i think maybe 3 freekicks and only when it was a dangerous tackle. he would give advantage when there wasnt any let alone call the right call when it is right in front of him, where as dundee got all the calls. i dont know how this is allowed to happen surley the higher ups must see just how bad it was and make changes to the ref schooling.

Agree0 Disagree0

As the original poster I have now had time to calm down and reflect lol. The game may have been meaningless but I like every Celt hate seeing my beloved team lose however meaningless the game may be. Hail Hail

Agree0 Disagree0

Every one of us gets annoted / upset / angry etc when we lose regardless of the circumstances. I'm actually disappointed for another reason. I wanted to see more of Bangura, Brozek, Ibrahim, Watt,cGeoch and i thought today would have been good for them as NL will no doubt play the regulars next week to get the applause they deserve. All in all a bit of a disappointing day but on the grand scheme of things we should all still be happy and proud of our team, we are the champions after all ! Hail Hail

Gary {Ed007's Note - I said to a friend earlier I thought we would have started with a lot more young/fringe players today.}

Agree0 Disagree0

I totally agree. Zaluska Mulgrew Rogne Lustig (the 3 centre halfs) Izaguirre left Mathews on right. In the middle McCourt where he showed up well against Motherwell and Brown and McGeouch with Rabiu Ibrahim behind Hooper and Bangura. then give Watt, Brozek some game time off the bench. Easy to say now but I can assure you of this, if we got beat with that team today I wouldn't have been half as bothered as I was at being beaten with our almost first 11.

Agree0 Disagree0

I am afraid Mr Lennon seems to have been torn between knowing what he should do (play the young boys)and having a duty to win a game. The result and performance is clearly a reflection of this conflict in his thinking. It takes a lot of faith to play a team of youngsters and it seems that collectively the management team failed in this regard this time. Its a pity, but no more as we wont get too many opportunities to do this; unless he has a spectacular lined up for the final day where he plays a team of new Bhoys...who knows. We are all football fans, we support one of the greatest football teams on the planet, the OP got a little emotional, that's normal. We are CFC fans we get emotional about our club, that's what we do well. Other fans of other clubs seem not too care or get emotional when they should. Sopot Celt

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 14:34:29
Utter crap today. Very few with pass marks (if any) every cross didn't pass the 1st defender. Not impressed!
HH
pfb79

Believable9 Unbelievable5

06 May 2012 12:51:37
Tried asking on the other site but it seems to have slipped through the net . Was there not a story about Ibrox needing to close for the removal of asbestos at a cost of £2 - 3 million and the prospect of Rangers having to play at Hampden in the interim ? Is that still the case ?

Paddy Malarkey {Ed007's Note - As far as I am aware the asbestos still needs removed and Rangers have held some form of talks with the SFA about renting Hampden, but that was a few months ago now. Not much else seems to have happened since, well regarding this anyway.}

Believable3 Unbelievable1

100% true - Old firm game nearly called off after water leak last year when they could'nt afford to put the heating on exposed all this, as usual churnalism sheilded this from everyboby.....Ibrox is full of asbestos and a hazard....no money to fix though...maybe it should be pulled down - ill help!

Agree0 Disagree0

As I understand it there is no legal requirement to remove asbestos as long as it is contained and checked regularly to ensure there are no contaminates in the air. Obviously the best thing to do is remove it but that costs money and right now Rangers can't go down that road.

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 12:26:14
"Members see the commercial benefits of having rangers,even as a newco.The clubs are mindful of a sporting integrity aspect but the commercial benefits may outweigh this" Is it just me that finds this comment disgraceful? It comes from the mouth of Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston.Just where does football in Scotland stand if the chairman of a club,having won a trophy this year,can say and believe this?What else might,on occasion,be more important than sporting integrity? Referees make honest mistakes,they call it as they see it and they needed help from a linesman( like dougiegate?)on a hard call.All well and fine but for one thing,on occasions financial benefits outweigh sporting integrity.So if you have been a good boy,toed the party line and been sympathetic to a fiscally troubled club,might a referee not see a last minute penalty call against your club in a cup final? Might the finance over integrity argument come to the fore?Who knows.You might even see a club awarded the most ridiculous penalty,in the last minute of a cup semi final,or a player not being sent off for a studs up dig into another players shin if finance outweighs integrity.We just would not want that would we?Mr Johnson runs a company as do i,Mr Johnson seems to base his yearly projections on one big customer buying tickets for his product twice a year.Now i would not be so stupid as to do that as so many things fluctuate in business.Does that make all the clubs who seem to be heading for liquidation, if rangers cash vanishes, badly run by people who should really get another job?Where does this statement leave the SPL hierarchy? What if Mr Miller gains control of rangers,after a couple of months of letting "athletic incubator" play in the league,it becomes apparent they will struggle to avoid relegation,what would happen? Would the league be expanded? I think we should know the answer to this Question,however academic it may seem,Because an SPL member has told us "sometimes finance outweighs integrity" Just a quick question for Mr Johnston, in the last five years how many relegated clubs have went bust? They lost the rangers support cash and SPL tv money but did not liquidate.So if any clubs is relying on two visits per year of rangers,with associated add on's,to survive,i would urge fans of that club to remove the guys who caused it.The chairmen!...........green jhedi

Believable10 Unbelievable1

"So if any clubs is relying on two visits per year of rangers,with associated add on's,to survive,i would urge fans of that club to remove the guys who caused it.The chairmen!"

It's a cascade effect, not just missing a couple of rangers games on its own. No Games -> Less TV money(any?) -> less sponsorship -> cheaper players(?) -> less
for fans to get behind, more of a gap between them and remaining OF)

You can't blaim the Chairmen, they're worried about a simultaneous "meltdown" across all their income streams. They do actually have to put on something worth going to see, or even fan loyalty will wain after time.

Agree0 Disagree0

Hi GJ. I will try and keep this one short (for me) if I can. In principle I agree with you but I can also sympathise with Johnston (he will not be alone BTW and should at least be credited with giving his honest opinion in public, whether you agree with it or not, unlike the others). The financial aspect he is talking about is not simply about two visits a year from Rangers, no matter how much they artificially bump up the prices for it. He, I am assuming, feels that the league will only survive financially with both halves of the Old Firm in it. Take away either or both and some clubs will undoubtedly go to the wall. The reason for this won't solely be to do with the loss of visiting Rangers fans (as the recent toilet scenario proved it can also be pretty costly to the home teams when the bad elements of ALL clubs come calling). No Rangers and/or Celtic in the Scottish League means reduced TV income and the loss or reworking of league and club sponsorships. Few outwith Scotland would be interested in the product thereafter whether it was Rangers or Celtic who went to the wall as the OF game is the biggest draw. This is where the dilemma comes from. Do you stick to your principles and probably kill your own club in the process. I am sure his supporters would thank him for that. Killie are in dire trouble financially as it is. Ironically this is arguably because the OF are looking after themselves, the same as he has chosen to do it would appear, by keeping the majority of the money that comes into our game and not sharing it equally amongst the clubs to help ensure the financial stability and, if you wish, the sporting integrity of the league itself (hardly a level playing field is it?). I, for one, can't blame him for saying what he has said.

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

Well it's up to individual people i suppose.I live my life by certain codes,i like to think i would never compromise my beliefs or principles. Nothing will change my mind on the fact that if you cheat,in life,sport or any aspect of life,you deserve any punishment given.I dont fiddle my tax because its wrong,i pay my bills because it's right and dont cheat people out of monies owed.All i expect in life is to be treated likewise.Am i comfortable watching a corrupt league?If Celtic vote newco in to the SPL i will seriously consider the purchase of a season book next season,thats how strongly i feel about this.When somethings not right its wrong.I dont think i can take a moral stance against rangers while being complicit in their cheating...........green jhedi

Agree0 Disagree0

There's a quirky irony to all of this. I'm a Rangers fans and like many more actually feel that Rangers MUST be allowed to start in SFL Division 3 as fair punishment for the mis-management of the club's finances by Messrs Murray and Whyte. The problem is that 'financial necessity' of others will not allow Rangers to do so. Sanctions will be imposed and, no matter what they may be, they'll be met with disdain by everyone, clubs and fans alike. I read a poster on Celtic Rumours last week who 'commented' that Rangers would be penalised to a lesser extent if we were in SFL Division 3 that having heavy SPL sanctions imposed for staying in the SPL.

What's it to be guys? Should we be allowed to go to Division 3 or not?

Agree0 Disagree0

I think Rangers will sty in spl because so many clubs will be affected financially. i think they will be hit with a points penaly making it impossible to win the SPL and so the clubs keep their revenues. This is not a fair way of doing things for the Spl and also for Rangers.

Agree0 Disagree0

Kilmarnock haven't cheated, we (Rangers) have. Johnston is just being realistic and looking after the best interests of everyone connected with Kilmarnock as they, as a club, would be one of the first ones to suffer if Rangers went to the wall or were demoted to the third division. I agree with a lot of what you say and applaud you for your principled stance GJ, I really do, but (and I know we are covering old ground here in a sense) what would you do if this situation directly affected your business and your family? Would the answer really remain the same?

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario whereby Green Jhedi PLC (now that would be an awesome name for a company would it not, lol) are faced with making either a moral decision which would have dire and far reaching effects upon the owner (you - Johnston), their family (Mrs Jedhi, your staff etc - Killie staff and fans), and its business partners (yours - SPL) or setting aside their own personal morals, no matter how strong, to protect the ones important to them. Let me be clear on this point - the owner of the company in question has not created this situation he finds himself in (the owner being yourself personally in this scenario). However, he may lose his company if he does not support (outwardly at least) and continue to trade with another company which is essentially one of two keeping his own one solvent. This company has recently been adjudged to have been trading illegally, had to change its name and default on the majority of its bad debts. However, without the benefits it provides you, even in its new form, your company will fold (it is currently just getting by and not solvent enough to rely on finding a more morally acceptable solution in time to avoid closure) resulting in yourself and Mrs Jhedi losing your house, cars, and any other items yourself as the highly principled owner who would never have put any of these in your wife's name for example (not very moral of you if you did as creditors would then lose out on valuable assets they could receive payment from) secured through the business (not saying you have done/would do either BTW this is merely hypothetical remember). You are left with as unsavoury a choice as you could possibly be faced with. Do you park your personal principles on the shelf in order to protect the ones you love and continue to work with this other company or do you (knowing that everything you personally have worked hard for will disappear and you will probably find yourself on the street) stick by your morals, explain your decision to your family and friends and hope they would understand why you are punishing them for the mistakes of another company and 'do the right thing', bearing in mind that you will be adversely affecting the lives of so many others that you care deeply about.

Killie may indeed have other options which would allow them to let Rangers go to the wall but would they survive long enough to benefit from them long term? I seriously doubt it but far more importantly neither does Johnston and he knows their financial position better than anyone. That is why he won't cut his own throat because of someone else's mistake, whether he agrees with his own decision in a moral sense or not. Given the bleak hypothetical scenario described above, if you reply saying that you would still choose to endanger the future well being of your entire family in order to teach this other unscrupulous company the meaning of values because it was morally right to do so I will be extremely surprised. I don't think Mrs Jhedi would fancy living in a cardboard box through the faults of others, no matter how much she loves you. Family comes first as they say.

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

@Brian;Some excellent points and a very good argument to boot.BUT!(you knew that was coming!) It is im afraid a moot point.I,being a fiscally prudent owner of a company have not,or would ever let myself,be dependant on any one company for business.If this fictional company had been trading illegally,i would base my judgement on the actual facts of the charges.If they had been screwing the tax or VAT i would probably continue to work with them.If,on the other hand,they had shafted decent,working people out of cash i would most certainly not,for the obvious reason i could be next.There is no double standard here either as, if they were still trading, they would be paying said tax and VAT back.The argument about losing houses etc is an emotional one,but if you conduct yourself properly that should not happen,thats what business projections are for.Nothing i own is linked to my business,the car i drive is leased,and my business has money in the bank.All this because my year end projections are not designed to stretch my company.My family would not be affected in any way were i to shut up shop,the people i employ would,of course be out of a job but would get a redundancy payment(i have insurance to make sure this is the case) and as an employer i really can do no more.Therefore i feel i would not have any problem with my moral compass,it's the way i was raised and,more importantly,i can look myself in the mirror.Surely anyone who secures their home against cash is a fool? As you say family comes first,which is why i would never be put in the position you outlined...........green jhedi

Agree0 Disagree0

Lets hope all the SPL teams are as financially astute as you GJ, you make it sound so easy ;)

Agree0 Disagree0

GJ. I regard you as being one of the most respectful posters on here and I wasn't for one second suggesting that you ran your business inappropriately, I respect you too much as a person for that and enjoy our healthy debates. I fully believe what you have said in your reply relating to your business.

However, (and you knew that was coming too, lol!) I was posing a hypothetical question with two outcomes, neither of which would lead to a happy ending (I definitely was not questioning your personal integrity, business practices or acumen). If you were faced with a scenario whereby you would either be faced with punishing people you care passionately about through maintaining your strict moral code (that's the conundrum in your argument for me as you would be willing to sacrifice others to salve your own conscience - surely an immoral stance by itself) and allowing a corrupt business to receive its just deserts, or you can set aside your own principles (as the ultimate decision maker for your company for which you are primarily charged with protecting the interests of the business and its shareholders) and do what is in the best interests of: a. the company and b. its shareholders (in Kilmarnock's case primarily the staff and fans) no matter your personal views on the issues.

This problem is one that has no morally correct answer and you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Johnston, morally, has absolutely no choice to make here. He either punishes his own club for the sake of his principles or shelves his principles to save his club. Lets be real instead of hypothetical here. If you were in Johnston's shoes would you be willing to end up as THE most hated man ever known in the Kilmarnock area forever more for allowing your club to vanish from history simply because you took a personal stance, based on your own personal morals, which directly impacted adversely on everyone around you? Fair play if you still say yes but you would have to hide out in Craig Whyte's castle under a pseudonym for the rest of your life, lol!

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

Brian.thank you.I have to stress my original point of only bad management would put you in the scenario you bring up.If i must hypothesise i would have to stick to my guns i am afraid.I would hope my wife and kids would understand that you have to stick to your principles in life,no matter the outcome.i have raised my kids to do the right thing,how could i look them in the eye if i sold myself out? My dad always told me if you screw up,put your hands out and take the belt,thats what a man does.Remember, for evil to flourish it only takes a good man to look away,so i can,with hand on heart. say i would have to do the right thing.Allow me to flip it,imagine if we all done the right thing? as Satchmo said.........green jhedi

Agree0 Disagree0

It sounds as though we are of a similar age and haven't been raised all that differently in terms of being taught the difference between right and wrong and sticking to our principles. We obviously differ on how we view what is morally right and wrong in relation to Johnston and neither of us will change our opinions on the matter, but that is an entirely healthy situation to be in as a first class essay would consist of a balanced examination of both sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion regards which one has swayed the particular student more. You appear to be a Deontologist (consistently act morally and do not deviate no matter what the consequences might be, even if they are immoral in themselves, as that is the right thing to do - the micro view) and I am a Consequentialist (look at the potential consequences of an action and decide on the course which offers the lesser evil as that is the morally correct thing to do - the macro view). I believe Johnston, through his inaction, is morally correct in his stance as, for me, it would be completely immoral of him to in all likelihood destroy his own club, and probably Scottish football as we know it at the same time, over the misdemeanour's attributed to and solely caused by another club. You believe he is personally acting immorally by supporting the idea of allowing a newco into the SPL and should vote against it on principle, despite the grave consequences for his own club if he does so as the offending club should be brought to account no matter what and justice must be served. You look at the small picture on a given topic and work your argument outwards from there and I look at the big picture (doesn't mean you don't see the big picture btw, I know you do, its just that the consequences are irrelevant to your decision making process) and work my answer inwards from there.

The SPL chairmen are faced with an impossible situation, that is why they will ultimately go with the middle ground and allow the newco into the SPL with possibly minor sanctions and no-one will be happy with the outcome. The same aforementioned chairmen will then be, in my opinion, unfairly chastised for taking the only morally correct decision available to them. Nobody wins out of this - Rangers would probably be better of starting in div3 (my personal preference) as being forced to stay uncompetitive with sanctions within the SPL may be seen, as a previous poster pointed out, as a heavy enough punishment in itself, whilst others will view Rangers remaining in the SPL at all as a travesty of justice and seek retribution (the posters on here arguing for Celtic supporters to boycott away grounds for example).

Who would be an SPL chairman eh? ;-))

Brian

p.s. (and this would have probably saved about a thousand words tonight, lol!) Johnston didn't screw up, Murray and Whyte did, why should he take the belt for their mistakes? Also, the one holding the belt can always use an alternative method of punishment if they feel it is for the greater good of all concerned in the long run.

Agree0 Disagree0

I think the argument of moral action and non deviation regardless of consequences,even if immoral,is impossible to argue.If a person acts,in their mind,morally,then surely the consequences would not come in to it? By adopting this stance you would accept that the consequences are out of your control.Of course there are many examples which would be impossible to accept.I abhor the use of torture,but if my family were in trouble and it was the only way to save them,would i stand by and let a man be tortured? I would say yes i would.This is of course a life or death scenario,not a financial or a job related problem.The Johnston argument for me falls on simple points.There has been a barrage of people in print and on TV/radio pushing this TV deal wont happen nonsense,it will.The deal will of course have some fat trimmed off it,but there will be a deal.Would this be so bad? Is it not about time these clubs learned to budget? Frazer Wishart pushes the players going part time tear jerker,so? We are living in austere times,players will just have to get on with it.My own opinion is it could be the start of a bright new future for the game in Scotland.I also think fans might see the bigger picture and start going to games in bigger numbers.Like you i think div3 is the way forward for rangers,i dont think it would be fair or sporting to impose sanctions and leave them struggling in the SPL just because of the away support.The hard cold facts of the game up here is there are too many clubs.By letting newco enter the SPL you lose any chance of making changes for the good of the game, not just SPL clubs.Rangers stint in the lower leagues would provide a cash boost for these small clubs,and leave rangers fans feeling all debts had been paid in full and honourably.If gers fans are honest and think,they would come back in a much stronger shape,probably with a young,hungry squad and cash in the bank.All the SPL clubs would be healthier and the league would kick on from there.People losing jobs would always have my sympathy,but thats part of life im afraid, and should not be used as an argument as it becomes emotional......green jhedi

Agree0 Disagree0

"If a person acts, in their mind, morally, then surely the consequences would not come in to it? By adopting this stance you would accept that the consequences are out of your control". Hitler argued for the extermination of the Jews on moral grounds, as he believed they were responsible for the corruption we find within society (his own overall belief was along the lines of Darwin in terms of the survival of the fittest would secure the existence and prosperity of humankind in the long run - the consequences of how it was achieved were similarly irrelevant to him as it was 'the right thing to do' in his mind) when he wrote Mein Kampf in his prison cell. Nobody paid any attention to this 'lunatic' and look what happened. You CANNOT have it both ways. If you take the philosophical stance you have then it has to be universally followed no matter what (whether it is good or bad for you personally or for others) otherwise you are simply picking and choosing what you deem to be the acceptable (job losses) and unacceptable consequences (endangered lives) of your actions/inactions in exactly the same way these chairmen are (justice versus self destruction) despite simultaneously arguing that those very same consequences are irrelevant and shouldn't affect their decision making process. That would be hypocritical and emotional when your entire argument is based upon the exact opposite - rationality. You can't give the example of torture (I am 100% with you on that one BTW - I would do it myself if I had to in that situation) and explain the deviation away by saying that that's an exception because you are preventing another from physical harm which is worse than someone losing their job. The man being tortured is going to be physically harmed. The point is then moot and no longer a morally correct decision, it's an emotionally correct one - I once got a College lecturer friend of mine whom I admire and respect very much to admit in class that his morals, which are philosophically the same and just as strong, if not stronger, than yours appear to be, would, with a clear conscience, allow him to stop someone with critical information from being tortured and subsequently stand by and watch an entirely preventable terrorist atrocity occur, killing thousands, as his initial action would be the morally correct one to make - needless to say the girl from New York in the class did not agree (no-one else did either BTW) and let him have it with both barrels. He stuck to his guns and more or less said that under no circumstances could he ever envisage that he would compromise his principles, even if in doing so he could be saving thousands of lives, and that decisions are either moral or immoral. Simple as that. There is no middle ground as that would be a compromise of his personal morals and consequences were entirely irrelevant in his mind, it was the initial decision that was the important one in terms of his conscience. You would just be putting the well being of your family before that of another's after considering the consequences (as I would do) as, in your mind, that is the correct action for YOU to take in that situation (harm one to protect another you care about from harm). In reality, what you (and I) would be doing would be going against everything we morally stand for (the protection of human rights in this case) and acting in the best interests of those you care about and are responsible for (my entire argument in relation to the decisions of the chairmen - reacting emotionally as well as morally to an exceptional circumstance). With your initial stance there can be no deviation, exceptions, or middle ground, irrelevant of the situation (you could possibly argue in return, as I did in class, that the man about to be tortured has acted immorally and you are therefore morally correct in punishing him - realistically that would just be bending the truth to suit your own argument and a false means to justify your immoral act after considering the consequences, nothing more) as your philosophy cannot afford to consider the consequences or, as you said, have no control over them because of its rigidity. Of course you have control over the consequences as your own example of torture proves (not always but you can at least gauge the likely probable outcomes and choose the one that causes the least harm), as do these chairmen.

As for the remainder of your post we are in complete agreement (almost, lol). This outcome POSSIBLY would be the most beneficial outcome for the game long term both financially and product wise in my opinion. I have argued that point before although it is far from certain to work out that way in reality. The lower leagues would get a financial boost (a bit like Rangers performing community service in a way, they wouldn't be there or willing to help out otherwise, lol), the leagues can be restructured (been required for years but, understandably, always voted against - also depends on a more democratic voting system being put in place), the share of the financial income would then be divided equally for the greater good of the game instead of 80% being given to two clubs only concerned with their own financial well being as it has been recently, and a more realistic number of clubs may eventually emerge (anywhere between 5 and 10 years in my opinion) stronger and more financially sound from the whole process. There would however be some steep obstacles to overcome in the process, all of which would offer up equally difficult decisions in a moral sense.

The two points I would query is your belief that the SPL clubs (assuming you mean the current ones) would emerge stronger and that the SPL clubs don't budget as things stand. Half of the current SPL clubs would go to the wall (unless Celtic or the SFA bail them out I suppose - immoral as it would be) within the first year, as most are on the brink financially and Rangers wouldn't return in time to re-stabilise them (they wouldn't last long enough without help to be able to come out on a stronger footing within the SPL in other words). We would most likely then be left with a raft of First Division clubs being parachuted into the league as the precedent would have been set by Rangers, and the SPL clubs that did go into liquidation would HAVE to follow suit for the sake of 'sporting integrity'. The SPL would then more or less consist of one relatively unaffected club winning the title year after year under no pressure whatsoever (boring for everyone concerned, including most Celtic fans if they are being honest) and the remaining teams battling it out to avoid relegation due to the financial hammering they would have taken if they did indeed survive the initial shock. We would have an absolutely atrocious product in the top league for the first two or three years at least (it would also be far more than just the fat trimmed off the TV deal in my opinion and would attendances really go up if the above proved to be the case?).

The current SPL clubs budget as best they can, as hamstrung as they are by the Old Firm in terms of equality of revenues and the long reaching financial burdens placed upon them in meeting the requirements for acceptance into the SPL in the first place. Undersoil heating, all seater stadia, etc, etc, for example. All of which costs huge sums of money that they don't have in order to put them in place. How would the parachuted clubs meet these criteria or would we just let them off with it for the sake of the game as we wouldn't want them to get into unsustainable debt and continue the vicious circle? Where would you stand on that from a moral viewpoint? Those are the rules and they shouldn't be bent for anyone no matter the consequence. If you think the quality of our league is bad just now, the popular opinion, how bad do you think it would have been if the chairmen of the other SPL clubs hadn't based their financial projections reliant upon the continued presence of the big two - however imprudent it has turned out to be? None of them could have predicted one could be relegated. Given the gap between the OF and the rest it would have been virtually impossible for it to have happened naturally. They do not have the initial income from merchandise etc we have to start with, and the Old Firm keeping 80% of the revenues generated on top of that for years would come home to roost big time on these clubs (who did vote the system in, but under duress from both clubs to be fair, and are not responsible for this mess). Given the Old Firm together are partially, if not fully, responsible for the financial instability these clubs operate under due to their personal greed (I know, I know - we bring in the majority of the money so we are entitled to it. Blah, blah. Can you really justify that morally? Really?) and that Rangers demise would be singularly responsible for the financial meltdown of their clubs I still can't argue against the decision they will make when the time comes, despite my personal desire for them to vote the opposite way. I am just being realistic, I would do the same as them (as would the vast majority of their own supporters if they were being honest and considered the consequences they would be faced with if they didn't) if I found myself in their shoes.

Brian

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 12:21:37
Big Vic on bench Lustig in ?........DH

Believable2 Unbelievable0

06 May 2012 10:33:31
I see Dunfermline Athletic chairman John Yorkston is now advocating that newco Rangers be relegated from the SPL , would it be anything to do with the fact that his club are looking more likely to be relegated themselves , earlier in the season Sone Aluko blatantly dived to earn a penalty which ultimately cost the Pars a valuable point , for which he was roundly chastized for , but the bold Mr Yorkston backed him up , when Rangers failed to pay Dunfermline the money they owed them , resulting in Dunfermline not being able to pay their players wages , again Mr Yorkston stood up and backed Rangers , if Dunfermline are relegated Mr Yorkston has only himself to blame , looks like the probable scenario , you Mr Yorkston have let you're fans down .

Believable10 Unbelievable0

If Rangers did go to SFL3, is it possible for a relegated Dunfermline not to go down? would they still go down and two teams move up from SFL1?

They're a crafty lot these SPL Chairmen, they come out all moral, but when you ask yourself what could they get out of this? Ahh, maybe avoid relegation ourselves, let's talk about the mechanics on Monday. Either way Dunfermline wouldn't be disadvantaged from voting rangers out.

Agree0 Disagree0

The guys a d1ck

Agree0 Disagree0

If rangers got demoted dunfermline would still go down

Agree0 Disagree0

Lets all remember who votes which way and avoid their Clubs going forward if the support slaps on the wrist!

Agree0 Disagree0

Surely 1 decision in 38games cannot be an excuse for being relegated lol

Agree0 Disagree0

I beleive karma is active again

Agree0 Disagree0

Mr Yorkston is a blowhard and a buffoon. He has his own medieval agenda and he feeds off anti Celtic sentiment. Bhoys dont give him air, hes another of the humungus ego brigade. Full of P*** & Wind. Sopot Clet

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 08:47:23
Good morning ed,

After my comment directly to Tam Cowan about his comment he made about the Thai tims I woke up with this response from the man himself.

"Hi *******,
Sincere apologies if you were upset by my line in today's column.
I can assure you I would never joke about disabled kids - especially as a new father myself.
The line was only a reference to the practice of kids in Asia famously forced to work in sweatshops making sportswear and in no way meant to offend either the kids or, indeed, readers like yourself.
However, as it is most certainly never my intention to offend anyone, I can only offer an apology and, having received two other similar complaints, I shall now be making a sizeable donation to the charity in question.
Apologies again and thanks for your email,
Tam"

I honestly think that the Celtic supporters on this forum defiently helped with this, is a quick response from Mr Cowan, but I emailed him back asking to publicly apologies to the Thai Tims in his column next time.

All in all good result to something that needed the support of us to protect these young children.

Hail Hail

Cumby Bhoy {Ed007's Note - Good result Cumby lad, well done.}

Believable8 Unbelievable1

I got a reply too,he mentioned that he has donated a sizeable donation to the charity as way of an apology which i feel was the least he could do.I will reply to him to make sure he prints an apology also.Good work Bhoys/Ghirls.

Jungle Bhoy.

Agree0 Disagree0

Two other e-mails. whos he tryin to kid. is this an atempt to make out it was not as bad as people are making out.

Agree0 Disagree0

Yeah there was a load of people on here last night saying they were going to email I don't believe it was just 2, and that's probably his personal email. Folk were saying they were gonna email directly to the daily record editor.

Agree0 Disagree0

Could you also ask him for an apology for the disgraceful comments he made about priests and the catholic church on the after dinner circuit in the masonic halls.

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 11:10:35
An interesting well researched piece I can across on twitter ,hope this link is right ,all about the finances in SPL .... bit.ly/Imasqc .....TTTS

Believable0 Unbelievable2

Brilliant article. Totally confirms what a lot of people have been saying all along. Excluding the media circles and those who visit Castle Greyskull.
... MrCheshington

Agree0 Disagree0

Well the spl need to gain a backbone and just go for it throw them out but there just too scared because as per usual money talks unlike back in the day when the other teams could compete

Agree0 Disagree0

I notice they are using the name Zombie Rangers.Where have I heard that before I wonder?I have noticed a lot of what you say ed ends up on other sites.Do you write for other sites or help on any others? A Gers supporting mate of mine told me you had something to do with the rangers tax case site as well is that true?

Great job you do anyway mate.Keep it up. {Ed007's Note - I actually own the entire internet and just do this between my shifts on the Monster-Truck tour and being Wile E Coyote's stunt double. My real name is Setov and my dad owns Microsoft :-)

Agree0 Disagree0

Don't forget Ed,you are also licensed to kill.

Jungle Bhoy. {Ed007's Note - FFS don't say that on here JB!!! lol My door will go in tomorrow.....(Pat bell me, we've been rumbled wee man!)

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 11:04:57
Really looking forward to tonights game. Just warming up with the 3-0 replay.

I'm really hoping to see Commons and Izzy get 90 mins, and big Rab to get some more time on the park. I don't know why but I think he'll prove a great acquisition for us.

Dundee United to hopefully come at us and make for an entertaining match. If Neil goes with a back 3 again I'd be confident in another clean sheet, I love 3-5-2. Good wingbacks make for exciting football.

Celtic 2-0. Commons and Mulgrew.

GoldCoastBhoy

Believable0 Unbelievable2

06 May 2012 09:45:01
Ed. See there is a suggestion that accompany has been registered at
Companies House called Rangers FC Aquisitions Ltd via lawyers in the
Capital. Its thought this could be the 'incubator' ?

Believable0 Unbelievable0

06 May 2012 07:33:57
Can someone tell me why a lot of our OWN fans plan on hurting Celtic because of what may or may not happen at the s**t-pit. The best thing we can do is stay strong and continue to support Celtic if we have to boycott stadiums. then let it be the clubs who voted to keep the shame in the league.

hail hail

Marco1888

Believable7 Unbelievable0

So will you boycott your own team if they vote to keep them in then.

Agree0 Disagree0

All Celtic fans should boycott any Club that support a newco getting into the SPL. There are three generations of Celtic Season book holders in our family and we certainly will not be attending anymore away games if Rangers get the support they need. They are cheats and must be punished.

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 05:03:54
if rangers get put out of the spl the rest of the clubs could change the voting system to a more fairer majority rule and bring in a new law giving away teams 25% of gate receipts as an example 60,000 at parkhead away teams share would 15,000 x say an average of £30 a head = a nice £450,000 per game at celtic park celtic pay out over £8,000,000 a season to the other clubs but dont forget they will get a share of gates when they play away at least its fairer than the old firm taking most of the money between them so i hope the clubs banish rangers from spl and lost tv money can be replenished by celtic you know it makes sense... killiepie

Believable2 Unbelievable8

Agree strongly with this. Why should the smaller SPL teams suffer disproportiontely due to the enforcement sanctions on Rangers? As the only OF team left, think Celtic should step up to the plate and pay their dues.

Agree0 Disagree0

Why should we give them money for 15,000 tickets/fans wen most away teams struggles to bring more than 1,000 fans. we will be giving our money away for free, no thanks

Agree0 Disagree0

Perhaps I would support your argument for Clubs who do not support any Rangers newco getting straight into the SPL! If a newco gets into the SPL I will not be attending any ground that supported such a move.

Agree0 Disagree0

I disagree with a share of gate of 25% if celtic park sells out and they bring 2000 fans give them that gate monay and when we go to there grounds and take 4000 we get that gate money then Celtic gain and i agree tv money shared more evenly

Agree0 Disagree0

Let the visiting clubs keep the monies that their own fans bring on match day and TV monies should certainly be looked at to help the lower clubs but only if they stand firm against any newco entering the SPL!

Agree0 Disagree0

Here's a novel idea for you killiepie. Why don't supporters of your club and others start going to games. Perhaps then you won't need to put finance over integrity or expct supporters of others clubs to subsidise you. More TV money is fair enough but ticket mnoney should stay with home teams

Agree0 Disagree0

06 May 2012 03:55:02
hi ed,was listening to a radio phone in after yesterdays games and they were talking about this bill miller takeover of rangers.....basically what the guys on the panel were saying that it was a possibility that bill miller has had reasurances from the sfa that there will be no sanctions against rangers whatsoever in order for him to take over the club.....now surely this cannot be allowed to happen? im celtic through and through and while i dont want to see the total death of rangers football club,i do expect them to be punished severly for there mismanagement over the years.while i can understand the chairmen of the smaller clubs panicking about loss of revenue if rangers were to be removed from the spl,surely that doesnt mean that they should go unpunished?i for one will be totally disgusted by the sfa if this was allowed to happen and if it were to be the case,if iwere peter lawal etc i'd withdraw celtic from the scottish cup and hit the sfa were it hurts,also the celtic support should also boycott all spl away games to the clubs who would be voting to let rangers back in without punishment,hitting these clubs were it hurts financially....as much as rangers are a big club and are needed financially by the smaller clubs,celtic are a huge club aswell,these smaller clubs also rely on the finances that we bring to their clubs aswell....what do u think ed? {Ed007's Note - Neil Doncaster has said 'We are certainly aren't in a position to offer any assurances to anyone'. Even the statement from Whitehouse from D&P is only 'assuming' that Miller has 'the level of comfort he needs to proceed'. If there has been any illegal talks or arrangements made then some form of legal action will need to be taken, the whole integrity of the Scottish game is on the line here and there shouldn't be any corners cut. As for boycotting away games etc, why? It will be the SFA/SPL who are at fault, what is the Tartan Army's take on all of this?}

Believable1 Unbelievable1

06 May 2012 00:54:58
ED;perhaps.......... {Ed007's Note - Thanks very much for that, anything like that please feel free to let me know, if I can't sort it I will get one of the geek squad on it right away.}

Believable0 Unbelievable0

05 May 2012 23:18:39
If anyone has a few spare pound about them get on to Penny's Irish website where you can buy Irish funny euro 2012 tops for charity for Childrens sick hospital Dublin. Am sure you can but them on line. Cheers bigirishmac

Believable3 Unbelievable3

What's the full website name?

Agree0 Disagree0

 
Change Consent