| Rangers 17:39 - Jul 21 with 3082 views | cy74 |
They can't sign any players over eighteen for twelve months with all the player losses maybe they will drop the odd point this season |  | | |  |
| Rangers on 17:57 - Jul 21 with 3068 views | PerthDale |
Rangers have reluctantly agreed to the 12 month signing ban (even though it was overturned by the courts they couldn't do otherwise if they want to get their SFA membership) but it doesn't start until 1st September ie they can sign players in the current transfer window but not in January, nor in next years pre-/early-season window.
So, they've got about six weeks to sign some experienced players capable of winning both SFL Div 3 and Div 2 (with the help of their best 18 year olds, of course). | | | |
| Rangers on 18:02 - Jul 21 with 3055 views | Yorkshire_Dale |
| Rangers on 17:57 - Jul 21 by PerthDale |
Rangers have reluctantly agreed to the 12 month signing ban (even though it was overturned by the courts they couldn't do otherwise if they want to get their SFA membership) but it doesn't start until 1st September ie they can sign players in the current transfer window but not in January, nor in next years pre-/early-season window.
So, they've got about six weeks to sign some experienced players capable of winning both SFL Div 3 and Div 2 (with the help of their best 18 year olds, of course). |
It's a pity they missed out on Barnes-Homer now that Macc have signed him. | | | |
| Rangers on 18:08 - Jul 21 with 3047 views | ColDale |
the talk is now of stripping them of the four titles they won whilst using the tax avoidance scheme. I would guess they'll not do this because of the political aspect of giving the titles to Celtic, but should it come to that, would it not open up the potential for Celtic to sue the former owners for Champs Lge funds that they missed out on? |  | | |
| Rangers on 19:18 - Jul 21 with 3006 views | PerthDale |
| Rangers on 18:08 - Jul 21 by ColDale |
the talk is now of stripping them of the four titles they won whilst using the tax avoidance scheme. I would guess they'll not do this because of the political aspect of giving the titles to Celtic, but should it come to that, would it not open up the potential for Celtic to sue the former owners for Champs Lge funds that they missed out on? |
I think it would be farcical if punishments like that were handed out. Trying to re-write history kicks off all sorts of 'what-ifs' that could never be resolved. If Rangers hadn't have used dual contracts and tax avoidance (evasion?) schemes would their squads have necessarily been weaker? Even if they had been might Celtic have then spent less in trying to keep up with their big rivals - there has been a footballing 'arms race' between the two for years.
And then the consequences for the other clubs might have been different. Even now some of the SPL clubs are grasping this situation in a positive manner - season ticket sales at many clubs are up, Aberdeen are leading a campaign for the league to have a 'sell-out Saturday' in a few weeks. Had both Rangers and Celtic been weaker this past decade then some of the other clubs might have galvanised themselves for a realistic challenge - as it was the Old Firm were just so far in front that the rest settled for being the best of the rest.
As for the cups, would it mean that Queen of the South were actually cup winners a few years ago? But then they probably would have played against another SPL team had Rangers not been as strong, so probably would not have won anyway.
No, I think this is a pretty grubby attempt by Celtic to stick the boot in whilst their bitter rival are down - they have been taunted mercilessly by Rangers' fans for being behind in the number of titles won - and Scottish football shouldn't get involved in or encourage these petty squabbles. One idea that has been put forward is that the titles/cup wins are stripped from Rangers but not awarded to anyone else - they just remain unawarded for those seasons.
As for legal action, from what I know of Scots legal system, I'm not sure Celtic would be successful, or if they were that they would get anywhere near what they wanted. Furthermore, taking legal action over a footballing matter might fall foul of FIFA's policy of avoiding the courts - ultimately Celtic could find themselves expelled! Having them re-apply for membership, and starting again in Div 3, would be interesting, though! | | | |
| Rangers on 11:48 - Jul 22 with 2889 views | SteTsGoldenBoot |
| Rangers on 19:18 - Jul 21 by PerthDale |
I think it would be farcical if punishments like that were handed out. Trying to re-write history kicks off all sorts of 'what-ifs' that could never be resolved. If Rangers hadn't have used dual contracts and tax avoidance (evasion?) schemes would their squads have necessarily been weaker? Even if they had been might Celtic have then spent less in trying to keep up with their big rivals - there has been a footballing 'arms race' between the two for years.
And then the consequences for the other clubs might have been different. Even now some of the SPL clubs are grasping this situation in a positive manner - season ticket sales at many clubs are up, Aberdeen are leading a campaign for the league to have a 'sell-out Saturday' in a few weeks. Had both Rangers and Celtic been weaker this past decade then some of the other clubs might have galvanised themselves for a realistic challenge - as it was the Old Firm were just so far in front that the rest settled for being the best of the rest.
As for the cups, would it mean that Queen of the South were actually cup winners a few years ago? But then they probably would have played against another SPL team had Rangers not been as strong, so probably would not have won anyway.
No, I think this is a pretty grubby attempt by Celtic to stick the boot in whilst their bitter rival are down - they have been taunted mercilessly by Rangers' fans for being behind in the number of titles won - and Scottish football shouldn't get involved in or encourage these petty squabbles. One idea that has been put forward is that the titles/cup wins are stripped from Rangers but not awarded to anyone else - they just remain unawarded for those seasons.
As for legal action, from what I know of Scots legal system, I'm not sure Celtic would be successful, or if they were that they would get anywhere near what they wanted. Furthermore, taking legal action over a footballing matter might fall foul of FIFA's policy of avoiding the courts - ultimately Celtic could find themselves expelled! Having them re-apply for membership, and starting again in Div 3, would be interesting, though! |
It looks as though the Celtic board are making all these decisions, not the SFA!
Making an example of them is one thing, but what next?
In a strange way though, are they actually helping Rangers?
Now nobody knows what their crowds will be, but say they start at 15,000 for home games, the average player in the Scottish 3rd division will be on what (perhaps £150 part time)?
So even if Rangers pay £6/700 per week, all of a sudden for players such as Simon Ramsden, Dean Holden even Gary Jones(perhaps next season), it becomes a great opportunity to finish your playing career at a club they would have only dreamed of playing for at a level where they will be a class above the rest.
If they had been put in the first division, they would have been under pressure from the off to be competative, hence higher wages.
With their financial slate wiped clean, by the time they are in the Scottich Prem and back up to crowds of 40,000, they will most certainly be the richest club in Scotland, IF they run in right.
Funny old game. |  |
| Everything thats been, has past. The answers in the looking glass! |
| |
| Rangers on 11:58 - Jul 22 with 2871 views | SuddenLad |
| Rangers on 19:18 - Jul 21 by PerthDale |
I think it would be farcical if punishments like that were handed out. Trying to re-write history kicks off all sorts of 'what-ifs' that could never be resolved. If Rangers hadn't have used dual contracts and tax avoidance (evasion?) schemes would their squads have necessarily been weaker? Even if they had been might Celtic have then spent less in trying to keep up with their big rivals - there has been a footballing 'arms race' between the two for years.
And then the consequences for the other clubs might have been different. Even now some of the SPL clubs are grasping this situation in a positive manner - season ticket sales at many clubs are up, Aberdeen are leading a campaign for the league to have a 'sell-out Saturday' in a few weeks. Had both Rangers and Celtic been weaker this past decade then some of the other clubs might have galvanised themselves for a realistic challenge - as it was the Old Firm were just so far in front that the rest settled for being the best of the rest.
As for the cups, would it mean that Queen of the South were actually cup winners a few years ago? But then they probably would have played against another SPL team had Rangers not been as strong, so probably would not have won anyway.
No, I think this is a pretty grubby attempt by Celtic to stick the boot in whilst their bitter rival are down - they have been taunted mercilessly by Rangers' fans for being behind in the number of titles won - and Scottish football shouldn't get involved in or encourage these petty squabbles. One idea that has been put forward is that the titles/cup wins are stripped from Rangers but not awarded to anyone else - they just remain unawarded for those seasons.
As for legal action, from what I know of Scots legal system, I'm not sure Celtic would be successful, or if they were that they would get anywhere near what they wanted. Furthermore, taking legal action over a footballing matter might fall foul of FIFA's policy of avoiding the courts - ultimately Celtic could find themselves expelled! Having them re-apply for membership, and starting again in Div 3, would be interesting, though! |
Rangers wouldn't have had those players that won the titles if they hadn't had a corrupt policy which enabled them to pay the salaries in the way that they did.
Similar things happened in Italy and titles were removed from previous winners because of corrupt practices. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
