As mentioned by a few on the Rangers admin thread that they would stay away if things go as hinted I'd like to guage the level of support against such an action. Personally I am one of those who'll find another sport to support. Shinty's a good day out nowadays.

i would carry on supporting inverness but would never go to a inverness- rangers game at ibrox

I have not voted in the poll yet as I am undecided but I would seriously consider not bothering with the SPL as much as I do now if this happened. I don't see the point in going to watch what is supposed to be a sport when certain participants are allowed to cheat or measures are put in place for them to win all the time. I don't think I would give up on football altogether although I have little interest in the English game so I guess I would look to the Scottish lower/Highland League (most likely the later).

I am a reletively new follower of football and I care very much about ICT and I would probably be lying if I said I would never return to TCS or give up supporting them but if there were no sanctions against Rangers then what would be the point in watching my team not re-sign players, cut back year after year to do things the ethical way when others do not? it almost seems like we are penalised for doing this.

I will be bitterly dissapointed if I was to find out the club voted newco in as I would rather see us playing in a lower league or in a weaker SPL. I mean its not as if we throw money at transfers or high wages at the moment.

This is of course a hypothetical argument and I don't think I could really imagine how I would feel until this actually happened. I have thought about this for a while and will continue to do so even in the hour or so since I origonally posted this I have edited it so that shows the conflict I am having.

Edited May 22, 201213 yr by Proctor

I'm going to carrying on supporting ICT regardless of the Rangers situation. I don't feel the need to punish the club just because of other teams actions. Yeah, I feel that the sporting integrity of the SPL will be lost because of it but it's outwith our control. I just can't get my head around not supporting ICT because of it.

Edited May 22, 201213 yr by ICTRoughi

I would carry on supporting ICT but would not give Rangers a brass penny so trips to Ibrox for me. Have not voted as that is not carrying on as I do now but is not exactly turning my back on the spl either. However Alex folk have to do what they feel is right for them so fair play to those who feel they have to stand up for what they believe is right. I think there will be quite a few in the later category and if I hadn't the kids to consider (who don't get politics yet) then I may have joined you.

i would still support caley no matter what but as for Scottish football i wouldnt care about it because they never let Gretna back in and they put Livingston to the 3rd division so why not do it for rangers

i would still support caley no matter what but as for Scottish football i wouldnt care about it because they never let Gretna back in and they put Livingston to the 3rd division so why not do it for rangers

I dont want to be a spokesperson for Rangers .. but as I have posted numerous times, you cannot compare Livi / Clydebank / Gretna / Dundee or any other team who faced sanctions/administration/liquidation to the current Rangers situation.

The ONLYteam to have faced sanctions by the SPL (before Rangers) were Gretna. They were deducted 10 points and at the end of the season, relegated (by way more than 10 points). At this point they ceased to be a member club of the SPL and became a member club of the SFL. The SFL then sought assurances from them that they would be able to fulfill the next season's fixtures and when they could not, they were demoted to the bottom of the SFL's own structure (ie. D3) and subsequently went into liquidation. The same applied to Livi when the previous owner was playing silly beggars in the SFL's eyes. Already in D1, they could not guarantee to fulfill fixtures as a result of council action over the stadium and were also demoted to D3 and began their climb back up the divisions. Dundee were hit with the 25 point penalty by the SFL after going into administration for a second time ... the first time it happened they were in the SPL and received absolutely no penalty. Livi also received no penalty for going into Admin when in the SPL and Motherwell also escaped punishment so as much as many folk would like to say Rangers should be hammered and dropped to D3, it would be a far more savage punishment handed out than any of those that were vaguely comparable.

In a sensible world, where the national sport had a singlegoverning body instead of three major ones and several other ones for various non-league bodies like junior, welfare, HFL, etc then dropping them to the bottom of the structure would make sense, and I would probably support that notion, but in reality, the SPL cannot drop Rangers to the bottom of someone else's league structure even if they wanted to......

you want to get pissed off at the SPL? then get pissed off at the cluster**** way in which Scottish football is organised (or disorganised). We dont need 3 governing bodies with three sets of rules and with built-in preferential treatment for some over the others, and making rules up as they go along ... we need a single entity controlling however many leagues we end up with and with set punishments for breaching certain rules including the option to relegate from top to bottom ... However, we need to draw a line in the sand, change things now and apply punishments moving forward. We cannot apply these retrospectively, we cannot let (some) use the situation for 'revenge' on Rangers but equally it does stick in the craw that the SPL can basically do whatever they like in terms of inviting Rangers (newco) into the fold as a replacement for Rangers (screwed-co)

As for Caley Thistle ? Thats entirely different. I am a Caley Thistle supporter, have always been one since formation, and will always be one whether we are in SPL or any other division. My situation does not allow me to get to games very often, but you can rest assured that when planning future trips back home, it will not co-incide with games against Rangers.

If Rangers are allowed to stay as a Newco with no sanctions then they will have been granted that by the SPL member clubs. That would say to me that all the clubs condone what Rangers have done and, therefore, all the clubs, including ICT, will be guilty of failing to support sporting integrity.

Have Rangers Supporters in the guise of the Rangers Supporters' Assembly (why do they have always to be so triumphalistically grandiose - why can't they just have a Supporters' Club or Trust like everyone else?) not actually themselves provided a substantial argument for the SPL not to allow Rangers to remain a member club?

What the RSA has said is that Rangers fans should boycott away games against other clubs if the SFA's sanctions are upheld.

So, given that the main argument for allowing Rangers to remain in the SPL is that they provide revenue for other clubs, then has that not therefore been removed by the RSA's statement?

Scotty, correct there were no sanctions against Dundee, Livi or Motherwell from SPL. They did, however, all find a way out of administration. There main debts were to the banks and not the taxman. The Rangers people hope that they can form a new company, transfer all the assets and stay in the SPL. Meanwhile the original company will be liquidated, have no assets so will not be in a position to pay anything to their creditors. Basically the Newco is starting with a clean sheet, the Oldco dies and many many people become out of pocket. If the SPL membership votes to allow that then I'm sorry but they are not worth supporting.

Season ticket's already bought and paid for so it's a no brainer for me tbh. That said I would still be utterly disgusted if the Newco were allowed straight in and I would hope those at ICT would object in any way possible in the strongest terms.

I would seriously have to consider spending my money on football if a newco has no sanctions. I've already wasted a lot of money watching a league that is rigged. I don't know if i can carry on spending money on it if I know in advance that the league is rigged!

Nothing will stop me supporting ICT but I will not give my money to Rangers.

If it is true that ICT condone such a re-entry then i will certainly lose respect for my club

What people in Inverness should bear in mind is that to my understanding we had to dismantle two clubs with independant supports because it was HINTED that it would help our case for to even get a team in the SFL. On top of that we had to spend money on our ground to get into the SPL also.

We as a club have had to jump through hoops to get to where we are. A great deal of expense and heartache has gone into ICT's rise to the SPL. Why should a team that has had so many advantages that other sides have not had be able to walk straight back in?

Lots

Scotty, there are 2 huge differences here. Firstly, none of the clubs you mention who went into administration whilst in the SPL were reformed as a Newco. The only way a club should get into the SPL is by winning the SFL. If an existing club goes out of business and a vacancy arises it should be filled either by the team which finished 2nd in the SFL or by reinstating the team which was relegated. There is no reason why a Newco should be admitted - after all, had the failed club been responsible in managing it's affairs, paid it's debts and taxes and signed playing staff appropriate to the resource legitimately available, there is no guarantee that they would not have been relegated in any case. Why should they receive preferential treatment for acting irresponsibly rather than responsibly?

The second point is that even if some unpleasant wheeling and dealing goes on which leaves creditors millions of pounds out of pocket but allows the original club to come out of administration, there is no meaningful comparisson with other clubs who have been in administration. We should not be saying that clubs all receive a standard 10 point deduction for going into administration. It is like saying that a wee child who pockets a pack of sweeties from Tesco should be punished the same as the great train robbers - "well, theft is theft so treat them all the same". The scale of Rangers mismanagement is of a different order of magnitude and the punishment should therefore also be of a different order of magnitude. Throwing them out of the SPL would be perfectly reasonable because it would be giving a message that this level of financial mismanagement is not acceptable. Remember, paying for players they could not afford cheated the legitimate hopes and honest endeavours of other clubs to succeed and the SPL should see Rangers actions as hostile to fellow members and expel them. It would then be up to the SFL (or the English leagues) to consider whether or not they wished to allow them into their system.

If the SPL does not have the moral guts to expel Rangers then at least the points penalty needs to be in proportion to the level of "crime". 3 points a game might be reasonable so that they started on minus 114. At least that would give them a fighting chance and they could still pip County on goal difference on the last day of the season.

Whilst its great that my team are in Scottish footballs top league, I've not really enjoyed going to any games. The SPL is a nothing league dominated by the twins of evil and probably always will be. I'd wager that the hierarchy of the SPL don't give a stuff about the 'also rans'. Its their beloved OF they rely on to secure the TV prize money and they'll do every they can to secure that even if it means bending the rules to allow a corrupt side to remain in situ. I love ICT but hate the SPL. As always with SPL games I will select my games with care and will avoid any OF game...home or away.

Scotty, there are 2 huge differences here. Firstly, none of the clubs you mention who went into administration whilst in the SPL were reformed as a Newco.

Precisely the point I was making to the poster I replied to. Using any other team as an example (eg. Gretna) is irrelevant as this has never happened before and there is/was nothing in place to cover this eventuality .... the fact that there will be something in future might stick in the throat a bit (a lot) but applying a new rule retrospectively is wrong in my opinion especially as we all know that had it been a team outside the OF that this discussion would be long finished !!!

The only way a club should get into the SPL is by winning the SFL. If an existing club goes out of business and a vacancy arises it should be filled either by the team which finished 2nd in the SFL or by reinstating the team which was relegated. There is no reason why a Newco should be admitted - after all, had the failed club been responsible in managing it's affairs, paid it's debts and taxes and signed playing staff appropriate to the resource legitimately available, there is no guarantee that they would not have been relegated in any case. Why should they receive preferential treatment for acting irresponsibly rather than responsibly?

I don't disagree with you, but the simple fact is that the SPL and SFL are separate entities and the only agreement in place is that the bottom team in SPL is relegated with the top team in D1 being promoted if their ground meets the criteria or if they have suitable plans in place to ensure they are playing in an SPL compliant stadium. To the best of my knowledge nothing covers expelling a team from the SPL into the lower reaches of the SFL. Until the SFL, SPL, and SFA combine into a single governing body this kind of cluster**** is always going to be on the cards !

The second point is that even if some unpleasant wheeling and dealing goes on which leaves creditors millions of pounds out of pocket but allows the original club to come out of administration, there is no meaningful comparisson with other clubs who have been in administration.

Actually there is, its called Motherwell !!! They went into administration in the SPL, had no penalties applied and came out of administration via a CVA which saw them pay something in the order of 8 pence in the £ to creditors and remain in the SPL.

We should not be saying that clubs all receive a standard 10 point deduction for going into administration. It is like saying that a wee child who pockets a pack of sweeties from Tesco should be punished the same as the great train robbers - "well, theft is theft so treat them all the same". The scale of Rangers mismanagement is of a different order of magnitude and the punishment should therefore also be of a different order of magnitude. Throwing them out of the SPL would be perfectly reasonable because it would be giving a message that this level of financial mismanagement is not acceptable. Remember, paying for players they could not afford cheated the legitimate hopes and honest endeavours of other clubs to succeed and the SPL should see Rangers actions as hostile to fellow members and expel them. It would then be up to the SFL (or the English leagues) to consider whether or not they wished to allow them into their system.

Disagree. 10pt penalty should be applied to any team for going into administration. Further penalties or sanctions should then be applied depending on the scale of the 'crime' (just like your example where the guilty parties would get different sentences despite both being guilty).

I have no problem with Rangers getting a huge fine, nor with a transfer embargo, nor with the SPL witholding a % of the money they would be due in future seasons ... its about the only things they can do at this point in time under the current rule structure other than kick them completely out of the SPL ....

the 'newco' thing in my mind is basically tantamount to the SPL kicking old Rangers out and making a decision on whether to allow newco Rangers straight into their single entity league or whether newco Rangers need to apply to the SFL for entry to that league after a second SFL team comes up via the promotion/relegation agreement .....

Doncaster is spinning in the wind and making no sense so we already know the decision is likely made .... but regardless of the decision, the ramifications are huge ... Rangers in the SFL (assuming they get in) means a lot less money for all and maybe more teams into administration, and yes, I also agree, that newco Rangers, straight into the SPL (which they are allowed to do within their rules) is also tantamount to cheating or at the very least some extremely shady practices that will definitely drive a lot of fans away from the already ailing game .... its a no win situation and if this response sounds contradictory, it is because I honestly dont know whats best for ICT in all of this and that is the only team I am bothered about.

If the SPL does not have the moral guts to expel Rangers then at least the points penalty needs to be in proportion to the level of "crime". 3 points a game might be reasonable so that they started on minus 114. At least that would give them a fighting chance and they could still pip County on goal difference on the last day of the season.

That works for me

For me, the sanctions matter not a jot and only serve to cloud the issue.

It's not even about the NewCo being founded off the back of the demise of an existing club/business.

The bottom line is that we have a system in place whereby new teams should start from the bottom an earn their place in the top league. Allowing a new team to bypass that setup for whatever reason, but especially financial reasons, makes the whole thing a farce.

If you want to talk about precedents then ICT is the biggest of them all. We were a NewCo entering the league setup and we had to start from the bottom. Could you imagine the response we would have got had we requested entry straight in to the SPL?

I am an ICT fan, I will always be an ICT fan. ICT are not the Board, they are not the current decision makers...and if those people were to support the admission of a NewCo straight in to the SPL then my disappointment would be with them. I would then find myself in a position I have found myself in the past whereby I have to decide if my disappointment at the people running the club outweighs my desire to attend games and all the other stuff that is a part of my being a supporter.

I honestly have no idea where my feelings would sit on that as I appreciate that Club Boards probably face one of the hardest decisions they've ever had to make. Sell out and ensure their club books balance a little easier for a few seasons until they can hand over the reins (nobody wants to risk failure on their watch), or take a stand and face the hard work that comes with having the courage of your convictions.

My biggest fear is the damage that would be done to board/fan relations. We've had situations in the past which have done damage there, situations which we have never fully recovered from. It's taken years to reverse some of the feelings in that regard, but IMO real progress has been made in the past couple of years.

The above is a scenario that has been played out at every club at some point in time to varying extents, but I dread to think what the league would become if it was a scenario played out at the majority of clubs at the same time and to the potential extent which is being indicated by fans views.

There's a very real possibility that if the SPL allow a NewCo to walk straight in to the league then TV, Sponsorship, Sanctions etc could be the least of their worries. We could end up with a league full of teams which would, quite literally, pull themselves apart.

Clubs exist because of the fans, not despite them. Not something that can always be said of those who ru(i)n the game in Scotland.

The bottom line is that we have a system in place whereby new teams should start from the bottom an earn their place in the top league. Allowing a new team to bypass that setup for whatever reason, but especially financial reasons, makes the whole thing a farce.

Until we have a single league structure rather than 1 entity with 3 divisions and 1 entity with an 'elite' single division then we leave ourselves wide open to this ..... forget Rangers for a second .. the whole structure needs to change.

If you want to talk about precedents then ICT is the biggest of them all. We were a NewCo entering the league setup and we had to start from the bottom. Could you imagine the response we would have got had we requested entry straight in to the SPL?

That would have been interesting, especially as technically there is no barrier to applying !!!

A lot of people seem to be getting caught up in the whole "retrospective punishment" issue.

Bottom line, there's no rule which says that the SPL must allow a share transfer and entry to a NewCo.

If you accept that a NewCo should be allowed entry at all....then surely they can't expect the retrospective benefit of a rule change that allows such a thing without facing the retrospective punishments which are attached???

The bottom line is that we have a system in place whereby new teams should start from the bottom an earn their place in the top league. Allowing a new team to bypass that setup for whatever reason, but especially financial reasons, makes the whole thing a farce.

Until we have a single league structure rather than 1 entity with 3 divisions and 1 entity with an 'elite' single division then we leave ourselves wide open to this ..... forget Rangers for a second .. the whole structure needs to change.

If you want to talk about precedents then ICT is the biggest of them all. We were a NewCo entering the league setup and we had to start from the bottom. Could you imagine the response we would have got had we requested entry straight in to the SPL?

That would have been interesting, especially as technically there is no barrier to applying !!!

First off, the SPL entry criteria do mention promotion from Division 1....so whilst I agree that a 3 body setup is a farce, there's clear qualifying criteria in place as things stand.

Secondly, the SPL entry criteria also state that any new team should have applied by the end of March. As Falkirk, Dundee & Ross C*unty were the only teams to have applied by the deadline, then they should be the only ones considered for any spaces that may become available.

Finally, If we "forget Rangers" then the problem takes care of itself....it is only when people view Rangers as they are now to be the same club as Rangers under a NewCo that the waters get muddied. "Forget Rangers" and the NewCo is ICT back in 1994....a new team seeking entry to the Scottish League system.

Getting back to the OP's question, I would still support my team but I would not put a penny of my money into Ranger's coffers if I could help it. Of course, not going to Doncaster Ranger's matches could potentially hurt ICT through lost revenue but that is easily remedied for those of us who are not season ticket holders simply by going to another match I otherwise might not have attended.

If my club voted to keep Rangers in the league I would be unhappy with that and would probably write to the club to express my anger at their decision - but I would not stop supporting the club. The club is a lot more than the Board.

If the SPL does not have the moral guts to expel Rangers then at least the points penalty needs to be in proportion to the level of "crime". 3 points a game might be reasonable so that they started on minus 114. At least that would give them a fighting chance and they could still pip County on goal difference on the last day of the season.

That works for me

So Rangers finish on 0 points ahead of County? How does that work? Would County not have at least 9 points?

Doncaster Ranger's......

:rotflmao:

I know it will happen, but I am having trouble working out how they will bypass the SFA club rules. They still need three years of audited accounts (this is not just a requirement for UEFA). the only way they can really do this is by doing an Airdrie and buying a club like clydebank ansd relocating it.

So let's say that newco doesn't happen, the SFA are quickly running out of time to advertise, receive, assess and promote a new club to Div 3 to replace Rangers.

I'm not sure how they will do it but Govan Rangers are a dead set, 24 carat certainty for the SPL next year - and it stinks.

"Well I am a Caley fan - and I'm an Invernessian - They can do what they want - cos I dont give a feck - cos I want to be ICT."

The simple logic to follow is to stay away from Castle Greyskull - find a pub with Jeff Stelling on a large screen - "get pissed - destroy".

"Anarchy in the SPL" - Johndo Rotten

Edited May 23, 201213 yr by IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER