SPL kicks off today, for the effect of the Rangers situation on the top flight take a look at this list of ins and outs, every team seems to have the same transfer activity as Charlton !
I see that Rangers feel they should be promoted to the middle tier if the SFA goes ahead with its 12-12-18 proposal. Not sure why they feel they deserve that. There are more than 24 teams currently above them in the league structure even if they win the 3rd Division. Why should those other teams lose out?
Their is already a precedent set in 93/94, Stranraer, they won the bottom division as it was then, then they restructered to accomodate the SPL, Stranrear were "bumped" up to the middle division after restructuring to reflect their title win, otherwise them winning the league would have been meaningless and they would have stayed in the bottom division.SFL rules (as many others would be I imagine) state that whomever wins the league must be promoted, dont see what the argument is?
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Well, they're going from 4 divisions to 3, so Rangers would still be playing in a division higher than the one that they (presumably) will win this season.
Spot on DA9 - I'm sure many cant wait to jump all over Rangers for suggesting that they shouldn't play in the bottom tier having won it this year. Especially when as above;
a) their is a precedent set (the Stranraer case that DA9 pointed out) b) SFL rule 85 states a club cannot be prevented from expected promotion if league is dissolved/restructured
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Perhaps the SFA are changing the system for Rangers who would be fine with second division football at Ibrox next season?
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Its not because they are Rangers, the precedent has been set, if Queens Park, Annan or Peterhead won the league the argument from these clubs would be the same.
Well, they're going from 4 divisions to 3, so Rangers would still be playing in a division higher than the one that they (presumably) will win this season.
Because they would still be in the bottom tier. It seems clear to me that if they restructure then Rangers plus whoever wins the play-offs have to be promoted to the second tier.
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Its not because they are Rangers, the precedent has been set, if Queens Park, Annan or Peterhead won the league the argument from these clubs would be the same.
Ok, so why should Rangers start next season in a higher league than a side currently sitting mid table in the 2nd division? The argument "they are entitled to a promotion" doesn't work.
Rangers are currently the 33rd highest team in Scotland, to suddenly put them into the top 24 isn't fair on the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Its not because they are Rangers, the precedent has been set, if Queens Park, Annan or Peterhead won the league the argument from these clubs would be the same.
Ok, so why should Rangers start next season in a higher league than a side currently sitting mid table in the 2nd division? The argument "they are entitled to a promotion" doesn't work.
Rangers are currently the 33rd highest team in Scotland, to suddenly put them into the top 24 isn't fair on the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
So despit Rangers assertation, despite the fact Rangers expectation of a promotion (being in the same division as every team you played against this year can never be construed as a promotion can it?) being enahrined in the rules and despite the fact that there is an existing precedent (Stranraer) you still think Rangers shouldnt have the promotion that they are clearly entitled to ? Wow.
The bigger question is whether Rangers would actually do well in the second tier, on current showing the answer is probably no.
Well, they're going from 4 divisions to 3, so Rangers would still be playing in a division higher than the one that they (presumably) will win this season.
Because they would still be in the bottom tier. It seems clear to me that if they restructure then Rangers plus whoever wins the play-offs have to be promoted to the second tier.
I've not seen the exact rules that some posters have referred to but they seem to say that winning teams must be promoted. Well. Rangers would be. They will be playing in the 3rd division as opposed to the 4th. Do the rules make any mention of the number of divisions below them?
It looks a strange restructuring to me - they are going to 12 - 12 - 18. If they do 'jump' Rangers they would also have to put the winners of 4th Tier into the Prem. There is also talk of Celtic and Rangers having 'colt' teams.
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Its not because they are Rangers, the precedent has been set, if Queens Park, Annan or Peterhead won the league the argument from these clubs would be the same.
Ok, so why should Rangers start next season in a higher league than a side currently sitting mid table in the 2nd division? The argument "they are entitled to a promotion" doesn't work.
Rangers are currently the 33rd highest team in Scotland, to suddenly put them into the top 24 isn't fair on the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
So despit Rangers assertation, despite the fact Rangers expectation of a promotion (being in the same division as every team you played against this year can never be construed as a promotion can it?) being enahrined in the rules and despite the fact that there is an existing precedent (Stranraer) you still think Rangers shouldnt have the promotion that they are clearly entitled to ? Wow.
The bigger question is whether Rangers would actually do well in the second tier, on current showing the answer is probably no.
They would still be getting a promotion though. From the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
Winners of 4th division play in 3rd division. Winners of 3rd division play in 2nd division. Winners of 2nd division play in 1st division.
It only goes wrong if Rangers start throwing their toys out of the pram. And I don't understand why they would be so upset anyway. Under the current situation they are 2 promotions away from the top flight at the end of this season. Under the new proposal they would still be 2 promotions away from the top flight.
And se9, you didn't answer the question of why should Rangers start next season in a higher league than a side currently sitting mid table in the 2nd division?
Why should the sides who end this season ranked 25-32 start next season in a lower division than Rangers
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Its not because they are Rangers, the precedent has been set, if Queens Park, Annan or Peterhead won the league the argument from these clubs would be the same.
Ok, so why should Rangers start next season in a higher league than a side currently sitting mid table in the 2nd division? The argument "they are entitled to a promotion" doesn't work.
Rangers are currently the 33rd highest team in Scotland, to suddenly put them into the top 24 isn't fair on the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
So despit Rangers assertation, despite the fact Rangers expectation of a promotion (being in the same division as every team you played against this year can never be construed as a promotion can it?) being enahrined in the rules and despite the fact that there is an existing precedent (Stranraer) you still think Rangers shouldnt have the promotion that they are clearly entitled to ? Wow.
The bigger question is whether Rangers would actually do well in the second tier, on current showing the answer is probably no.
They would still be getting a promotion though. From the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
What about the team finishing bottom of the 4th tier?
Well, they're going from 4 divisions to 3, so Rangers would still be playing in a division higher than the one that they (presumably) will win this season.
Because they would still be in the bottom tier. It seems clear to me that if they restructure then Rangers plus whoever wins the play-offs have to be promoted to the second tier.
I've not seen the exact rules that some posters have referred to but they seem to say that winning teams must be promoted. Well. Rangers would be. They will be playing in the 3rd division as opposed to the 4th. Do the rules make any mention of the number of divisions below them?
No, only that there is a presumption of promotion (SFL rule 85, I'm not being snarky but I don't know how anyone can really comment on this if they don't understand both the rule and the Stranraer precedent).
If we accept there is a presumption of promotion and If you are in the bottom tier, you would presume that promotion means you are no longer in the bottom tier regardless of whether there will be 3, 4 or 20 leagues ?
Again, think about the definition of promotion. What do you think it means to the man in street ? Would they see playing in the same league as all the other teams in their current division as a promotion ?
Well, they're going from 4 divisions to 3, so Rangers would still be playing in a division higher than the one that they (presumably) will win this season.
Because they would still be in the bottom tier. It seems clear to me that if they restructure then Rangers plus whoever wins the play-offs have to be promoted to the second tier.
I've not seen the exact rules that some posters have referred to but they seem to say that winning teams must be promoted. Well. Rangers would be. They will be playing in the 3rd division as opposed to the 4th. Do the rules make any mention of the number of divisions below them?
Its in the SFL rules, any team wining their championship must be promoted, therefore if the league decides to restructure they must place that team in a division above the new bottom tier, I have read the SFL rules extract on a Rangers forum, (happy to find them and paste here if required) we would not be having this discussion if as I stated, Annan, Peterhead or Queens Park were the champions and Rangers had not been in Division 3.
Okay, I've now found the SFA rules and there is nothing in there that I can see that makes any mention of the "bottom" division or how many divisions need to be underneath you. In any event, the league rules can be altered with a two thirds majority vote so I suspect if Rangers push this the SFA will simply vote to amend any necessary parts of the rules.
Again though, with the new proposal Rangers will still be exactly the same number of further promotions from the top flight as they would be now and will not leapfrog 8 other teams who are higher ranked than them. I really don't see what they are crying about.
But do you not consider an abuse of process if the rules are implemented for another club in similar circumstances (Stranraer) but are then changed to the detriment of Rangers ?
But do you not consider an abuse of process if the rules are implemented for another club in similar circumstances (Stranraer) but are then changed to the detriment of Rangers ?
I consider it an abuse of process that Stranraer got to leapfrog x amount of higher ranked teams in the first place and I don't see that repeating the mistake with Rangers makes that any more palatable for the teams that were unfairly treated back then or those that will be unfairly treated now.
Okay, I've now found the SFA rules and there is nothing in there that I can see that makes any mention of the "bottom" division or how many divisions need to be underneath you. In any event, the league rules can be altered with a two thirds majority vote so I suspect if Rangers push this the SFA will simply vote to amend any necessary parts of the rules.
Again though, with the new proposal Rangers will still be exactly the same number of further promotions from the top flight as they would be now and will not leapfrog 8 other teams who are higher ranked than them. I really don't see what they are crying about.
Rizzo, you clearly have an agenda, as I said, would you have raised this if Queens Park had won the division and restructuring happened? The SFL rules state that the championship winning team must be promoted, a precedent has been set with Stranraer, end of argument.
Charlton won League one last season, what if the PL & Football league had decided to restructure, making 3 divisions, PL1, PL2, FL1 Charlton are told they must remain in the bottom tier rather than go into PL2, would you be happy with that?
Okay, I've now found the SFA rules and there is nothing in there that I can see that makes any mention of the "bottom" division or how many divisions need to be underneath you. In any event, the league rules can be altered with a two thirds majority vote so I suspect if Rangers push this the SFA will simply vote to amend any necessary parts of the rules.
Again though, with the new proposal Rangers will still be exactly the same number of further promotions from the top flight as they would be now and will not leapfrog 8 other teams who are higher ranked than them. I really don't see what they are crying about.
Charlton won League one last season, what if the PL & Football league had decided to restructure, making 3 divisions, PL1, PL2, FL1 Charlton are told they must remain in the bottom tier rather than go into PL2, would you be happy with that?
No because Charlton would've still been in the 3rd tier. Rangers are still going up a tier (4th to 3rd) under the new process.
None of you have given me a legitimate reason as to why Rangers should start next season in a higher league than the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
Charlton won League one last season, what if the PL & Football league had decided to restructure, making 3 divisions, PL1, PL2, FL1 Charlton are told they must remain in the bottom tier rather than go into PL2, would you be happy with that?
Hardly the same situation is it? In that scenario we would be 2 promotions away from the top flight instead of one, whereas Rangers would be in exactly the same position in both league structures.
Okay, I've now found the SFA rules and there is nothing in there that I can see that makes any mention of the "bottom" division or how many divisions need to be underneath you. In any event, the league rules can be altered with a two thirds majority vote so I suspect if Rangers push this the SFA will simply vote to amend any necessary parts of the rules.
Again though, with the new proposal Rangers will still be exactly the same number of further promotions from the top flight as they would be now and will not leapfrog 8 other teams who are higher ranked than them. I really don't see what they are crying about.
Charlton won League one last season, what if the PL & Football league had decided to restructure, making 3 divisions, PL1, PL2, FL1 Charlton are told they must remain in the bottom tier rather than go into PL2, would you be happy with that?
No because Charlton would've still been in the 3rd tier. Rangers are still going up a tier (4th to 3rd) under the new process.
None of you have given me a legitimate reason as to why Rangers should start next season in a higher league than the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
Surely the legitamite reason is rule 85 and the Stranraer precedent ?
If there is a rule and a precedent in place then surely the onus is on you to prove why Rangers shouldn't start next season in the division above the bottom tier ?
If the reason is "it's not fair on the clubs Rangers would leapfrog" as a result then what you are saying is it isn't fair to ask those clubs to adhere to the rules they have agreed to now it doesn't suit them.
Under the new structure if they were put in the bottom tier, Rangers would be 2 promotions away from the top league, same as they will be next season under the current format. As Rizzo said why should they leapfrog other clubs currently above them in the 'system' just because they are Rangers?
Perhaps the SFA are changing the system for Rangers who would be fine with second division football at Ibrox next season?
Whatever restructuring happens, if any, they would not be doing it for the benefit of Rangers, laughable to even suggest it, it would be for the cash from the Rangers fanbase spending power, which the SPL sorely miss. What with Rangers being found not guilty of any criminal act, other than an admin error, the SPL and SFA are falling over themselves to try and save Scottish football from the busted flush it has become, after the vindictive and knee jerk punishments dished out before any court rulings had been made, they are panicking and back peddling at a rate of knots. Hell mend the lot of em.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18976317
a) their is a precedent set (the Stranraer case that DA9 pointed out)
b) SFL rule 85 states a club cannot be prevented from expected promotion if league is dissolved/restructured
It seems clear to me that if they restructure then Rangers plus whoever wins the play-offs have to be promoted to the second tier.
Ok, so why should Rangers start next season in a higher league than a side currently sitting mid table in the 2nd division? The argument "they are entitled to a promotion" doesn't work.
Rangers are currently the 33rd highest team in Scotland, to suddenly put them into the top 24 isn't fair on the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
The bigger question is whether Rangers would actually do well in the second tier, on current showing the answer is probably no.
There is also talk of Celtic and Rangers having 'colt' teams.
They would still be getting a promotion though. From the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
Winners of 4th division play in 3rd division.
Winners of 3rd division play in 2nd division.
Winners of 2nd division play in 1st division.
It only goes wrong if Rangers start throwing their toys out of the pram. And I don't understand why they would be so upset anyway. Under the current situation they are 2 promotions away from the top flight at the end of this season. Under the new proposal they would still be 2 promotions away from the top flight.
Why should the sides who end this season ranked 25-32 start next season in a lower division than Rangers
If we accept there is a presumption of promotion and If you are in the bottom tier, you would presume that promotion means you are no longer in the bottom tier regardless of whether there will be 3, 4 or 20 leagues ?
Again, think about the definition of promotion. What do you think it means to the man in street ? Would they see playing in the same league as all the other teams in their current division as a promotion ?
Again though, with the new proposal Rangers will still be exactly the same number of further promotions from the top flight as they would be now and will not leapfrog 8 other teams who are higher ranked than them. I really don't see what they are crying about.
But do you not consider an abuse of process if the rules are implemented for another club in similar circumstances (Stranraer) but are then changed to the detriment of Rangers ?
The SFL rules state that the championship winning team must be promoted, a precedent has been set with Stranraer, end of argument.
Charlton won League one last season, what if the PL & Football league had decided to restructure, making 3 divisions, PL1, PL2, FL1 Charlton are told they must remain in the bottom tier rather than go into PL2, would you be happy with that?
No because Charlton would've still been in the 3rd tier. Rangers are still going up a tier (4th to 3rd) under the new process.
None of you have given me a legitimate reason as to why Rangers should start next season in a higher league than the sides who end this season ranked 25-32.
If there is a rule and a precedent in place then surely the onus is on you to prove why Rangers shouldn't start next season in the division above the bottom tier ?
If the reason is "it's not fair on the clubs Rangers would leapfrog" as a result then what you are saying is it isn't fair to ask those clubs to adhere to the rules they have agreed to now it doesn't suit them.
Hell mend the lot of em.