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.
They have to be given a promotion, the SFL made the rules and the precedent with Stranraer, take your objections to them.
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.
Its not about how many potential promotions they would be away from the SPL, its about not being in the new restructered bottom tier, a bottom tier they would have just won, if they restructured to 5 divisions, they should be in the 4th tier, not the bottom one.
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?
But that's not the same because Charlton would have won the promotion to PL2. Now, if you compare Rangers to Swindon who won L2 last year, then no, there would be no issue with them being in a new FL1, because that's where they would be anyway. Basically, if Rangers go to the new third tier, then they have arguably lost out slightly, but then so have the other side promoted from div 3 aswell as every team who didn't get promoted from div 2. At the same time, the two teams relegated from the current Div 2 and all the rest of the teams from Div 3 will benefit slightly. It will affect everyone a bit, but no-one excessively.
Rangers need to get a grip and suck it up. It's not all about them.
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.
Its not about how many potential promotions they would be away from the SPL, its about not being in the new restructered bottom tier, a bottom tier they would have just won, if they restructured to 5 divisions, they should be in the 4th tier, not the bottom one.
And if they restructured to just 2 division they would be back in the Premier League. Hurrah for Rangers!!
Out of interest, how many people have a genuine interest in the Scottish game to actually care?
I do but just wondering about others as it’s quite a popular thread.
I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly do. On Friday I'm up to Glasgow for the Scotland v Wales game and then Ibrox on Saturday for the Rangers game, can't wait !!
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?
But that's not the same because Charlton would have won the promotion to PL2. Now, if you compare Rangers to Swindon who won L2 last year, then no, there would be no issue with them being in a new FL1, because that's where they would be anyway. Basically, if Rangers go to the new third tier, then they have arguably lost out slightly, but then so have the other side promoted from div 3 aswell as every team who didn't get promoted from div 2. At the same time, the two teams relegated from the current Div 2 and all the rest of the teams from Div 3 will benefit slightly. It will affect everyone a bit, but no-one excessively.
Rangers need to get a grip and suck it up. It's not all about them.
Nobody said it was, the SPL *& SFL quoted sporting integrity for the last 18 months at Rangers, now with precedents set and SFL rules stating the same, people seem to want to change the rules because it happens to be Rangers who would seemingly benefit if it happened.
For the record, 99% of all Rangers fan would happily proceed through the leagues on merit rather than be parachuted into any restructure to help ease SPL money worries.
I must be being dense, but I don't see the issue. The are in the 4th tier. They won the 4th tier to gain entry to the 3rd tier. Now as long as they are in the 3rd tier next year then any rearrangements of the league structure don't matter. Just because the league choose to promote the rest of the 4th tier too doesn't change the fact rangers were promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
That covers rules 85 in it's entirety, they have been promoted. How else was also promoted has no bearing on that. If the league change had meant only 8, or 1 or 5 of the old 4th tier had got promoted, would that make any difference to the fact rangers definitely got promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
All this business about bottom tier is meaningless. We count from the top down. Using your logic, if Bradford win L2, but then L2 was disbanded, they would get a place in the Championship over wise they'd still be in the bottom tier. That sounds like terribly twisted logic to me.
They need to make the SPL bigger. Make it at least 18 teams. With only one team relegated each season, the same teams are playing each other 4 times a season every season (more with cup ties), no wonder there's no interest anymore.
I must be being dense, but I don't see the issue. The are in the 4th tier. They won the 4th tier to gain entry to the 3rd tier. Now as long as they are in the 3rd tier next year then any rearrangements of the league structure don't matter. Just because the league choose to promote the rest of the 4th tier too doesn't change the fact rangers were promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
That covers rules 85 in it's entirety, they have been promoted. How else was also promoted has no bearing on that. If the league change had meant only 8, or 1 or 5 of the old 4th tier had got promoted, would that make any difference to the fact rangers definitely got promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
All this business about bottom tier is meaningless. We count from the top down. Using your logic, if Bradford win L2, but then L2 was disbanded, they would get a place in the Championship over wise they'd still be in the bottom tier. That sounds like terribly twisted logic to me.
Spot on. It's no surprise the only people arguing otherwise are those who follow Rangers.
Rangers are looking at this new proposal as getting back to the SPL as quickly as possible, and see this as a way to get there 1 season earlier than expected. Impossible to see it any other way.
I must be being dense, but I don't see the issue. The are in the 4th tier. They won the 4th tier to gain entry to the 3rd tier. Now as long as they are in the 3rd tier next year then any rearrangements of the league structure don't matter. Just because the league choose to promote the rest of the 4th tier too doesn't change the fact rangers were promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
That covers rules 85 in it's entirety, they have been promoted. How else was also promoted has no bearing on that. If the league change had meant only 8, or 1 or 5 of the old 4th tier had got promoted, would that make any difference to the fact rangers definitely got promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
All this business about bottom tier is meaningless. We count from the top down. Using your logic, if Bradford win L2, but then L2 was disbanded, they would get a place in the Championship over wise they'd still be in the bottom tier. That sounds like terribly twisted logic to me.
Not my logic, the SFL & SPL's
The Scottish Football League The National Stadium Hampden Park Glasgow. G42 9EB.
Please address any of your complaints to one of the above, and remember to point out that the injustice of Stranraers promotion in 1994 has been eating away at you for nearly 20 years. The fact that Rangers may seemingly benefit from any similar restructuring, should it actually happen, you feel its high time you spoke out and finally put it to bed, as its a long time to harbour such a grudge.
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.
Not that I have any interest in Scottish football. Nail on the head. The top teams need the money Rangers generate more than the lower league teams do. I think it would be in the SPL & SFA interest to get them in the top division ASAP.
The point Rangers are trying to make is that, under the new league reconstruction, they will still be in the bottom league facing the same teams as they are this season.
Yes, they would be in the 3rd division not the 4th, but next season they would still the bottom tier playing against the same teams. That's not a promotion, in my opinion.
Anyone know why there's never any relegation from the 3rd division?
Because no set of fans should ever have to face the awful truth that their team is not even good enough for the 4th tier of Scottish Football and would struggle to defeat a Sunday League side.
The point Rangers are trying to make is that, under the new league reconstruction, they will still be in the bottom league facing the same teams as they are this season.
Yes, they would be in the 3rd division not the 4th, but next season they would still the bottom tier playing against the same teams. That's not a promotion, in my opinion.
It's not much of a promotion I'll grant you, but it is by any measure a promotion. They are playing in a higher division, which will include teams that were in a higher division than them last season. The fact it includes all the teams from the lower division doesn't change the fact they have been promoted.
If the SFA want to be clever, they'll promote Rangers to the old 3rd tier, then do the re-org, thus placing them in the new 3rd tier.
Someone always loses out in restructuring (e.g. Palace and Reading in '95), and in this case it's Rangers.
Can see both points of view, but agree with firstly what randyandy said above and also what Chris from Sidcup has said about teams 25-32. It's a little unfair on Rangers, but it'd be a lot more unfair on one of them to have to drop down.
The point Rangers are trying to make is that, under the new league reconstruction, they will still be in the bottom league facing the same teams as they are this season.
Yes, they would be in the 3rd division not the 4th, but next season they would still the bottom tier playing against the same teams. That's not a promotion, in my opinion.
It's not much of a promotion I'll grant you, but it is by any measure a promotion. They are playing in a higher division, which will include teams that were in a higher division than them last season. The fact it includes all the teams from the lower division doesn't change the fact they have been promoted.
If the SFA want to be clever, they'll promote Rangers to the old 3rd tier, then do the re-org, thus placing them in the new 3rd tier.
Agreed, but I can see why Rangers aren't happy at it.
The new league reconstruction is stupid anyway. The SPL is still 12 teams (the main problem) and nobody really benefits from it.
Based on what's happened with Celtic this season they (the SFL) need to do everything they can to get Rangers back in the top division asap.
Rightly or wrongly their punishment is killing the Scottish League Championship. It could well take Rangers a couple of seasons in the top flight to challenge Celtic anyway, they don't need to drag that out.
I would like Rangers to suffer their punishment in full (I've made my feelings about administration and knocking debts clear elsewhere) but there is no doubt that the SFL need Rangers back asap and this is a very clever way to achieve that.
Someone always loses out in restructuring (e.g. Palace and Reading in '95), and in this case it's Rangers.
Can see both points of view, but agree with firstly what randyandy said above and also what Chris from Sidcup has said about teams 25-32. It's a little unfair on Rangers, but it'd be a lot more unfair on one of them to have to drop down.
See my previous post re contacts to complain to.
Rangers didnt make the rule or create the precedent, all they have stated that if restructuring were to happen is that they be treated the same as Stranraer were in 94, a point many sellick minded people and Rangers haters cant see past. Every club signed upto the rules before the season started, now because its big bad Rangers who MAY benefit from said rules, they dont like it, tough, its all about sporting integrity apparently...or is it?
They were told to suck it up and accept the rules when being punished for going into administration, and then had further punishments placed on them before any courts had sat to decide if they were guilty of any criminal acts (which they werent), it seems the rules should only apply as long as its not Rangers who benefit.
I think it's 12-12-18, as the top to divisions will play each other 3 times (so 33 league games), whilst the bottom division will play each other twice (34 league games). If it was 14 per division, you'd have too few game (26) or too many (39, considering the winter break and the greater number of games lost to the weather compared with England).
Someone always loses out in restructuring (e.g. Palace and Reading in '95), and in this case it's Rangers.
Can see both points of view, but agree with firstly what randyandy said above and also what Chris from Sidcup has said about teams 25-32. It's a little unfair on Rangers, but it'd be a lot more unfair on one of them to have to drop down.
See my previous post re contacts to complain to.
Rangers didnt make the rule or create the precedent, all they have stated that if restructuring were to happen is that they be treated the same as Stranraer were in 94, a point many sellick minded people and Rangers haters cant see past. Every club signed upto the rules before the season started, now because its big bad Rangers who MAY benefit from said rules, they dont like it, tough, its all about sporting integrity apparently...or is it?
They were told to suck it up and accept the rules when being punished for going into administration, and then had further punishments placed on them before any courts had sat to decide if they were guilty of any criminal acts (which they werent), it seems the rules should only apply as long as its not Rangers who benefit.
Amusing that you accuse me of having an agenda when you are so clearly pro-Rangers. Incidentally, HMRC are appealing the (majority) decision of the tribunal over the tax issues so I wouldn't get carried away about saying they're not guilty of any criminal acts just yet.
With 12-12-18 they are effectively amalgamating the bottom two divisions, so although it makes this season in Div 3 completely pointless, I think it probably would be unfair to allow Rangers to go into the 2nd tier. Also when Stranraer were promoted, the league was going from 3 divisions to 4 so it was a different proposition. (The following season Stranraer finished rock bottom with 17 pts from 36 games).
Comments
Now, if you compare Rangers to Swindon who won L2 last year, then no, there would be no issue with them being in a new FL1, because that's where they would be anyway.
Basically, if Rangers go to the new third tier, then they have arguably lost out slightly, but then so have the other side promoted from div 3 aswell as every team who didn't get promoted from div 2. At the same time, the two teams relegated from the current Div 2 and all the rest of the teams from Div 3 will benefit slightly. It will affect everyone a bit, but no-one excessively.
Rangers need to get a grip and suck it up. It's not all about them.
I do but just wondering about others as it’s quite a popular thread.
For the record, 99% of all Rangers fan would happily proceed through the leagues on merit rather than be parachuted into any restructure to help ease SPL money worries.
That covers rules 85 in it's entirety, they have been promoted. How else was also promoted has no bearing on that. If the league change had meant only 8, or 1 or 5 of the old 4th tier had got promoted, would that make any difference to the fact rangers definitely got promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
All this business about bottom tier is meaningless. We count from the top down. Using your logic, if Bradford win L2, but then L2 was disbanded, they would get a place in the Championship over wise they'd still be in the bottom tier. That sounds like terribly twisted logic to me.
They need to make the SPL bigger. Make it at least 18 teams. With only one team relegated each season, the same teams are playing each other 4 times a season every season (more with cup ties), no wonder there's no interest anymore.
Spot on. It's no surprise the only people arguing otherwise are those who follow Rangers.
Rangers are looking at this new proposal as getting back to the SPL as quickly as possible, and see this as a way to get there 1 season earlier than expected. Impossible to see it any other way.
The Scottish Football League
The National Stadium
Hampden Park
Glasgow. G42 9EB.
Tel: +44 (0)141 620 4160
Fax: +44 (0)141 620 4161
E-mail: info@scottishfootballleague.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Scottish Premier League Limited
Registered Address: Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9DE
Registered in Scotland No 175364
Telephone: 0141 620 4140
Fax: 0141 620 4141
Please address any of your complaints to one of the above, and remember to point out that the injustice of Stranraers promotion in 1994 has been eating away at you for nearly 20 years. The fact that Rangers may seemingly benefit from any similar restructuring, should it actually happen, you feel its high time you spoke out and finally put it to bed, as its a long time to harbour such a grudge.
The top teams need the money Rangers generate more than the lower league teams do.
I think it would be in the SPL & SFA interest to get them in the top division ASAP.
Yes, they would be in the 3rd division not the 4th, but next season they would still the bottom tier playing against the same teams. That's not a promotion, in my opinion.
If the SFA want to be clever, they'll promote Rangers to the old 3rd tier, then do the re-org, thus placing them in the new 3rd tier.
Can see both points of view, but agree with firstly what randyandy said above and also what Chris from Sidcup has said about teams 25-32. It's a little unfair on Rangers, but it'd be a lot more unfair on one of them to have to drop down.
Can a highland league side ever apply for promotion? How did Gretna get into their league a few years back?
The new league reconstruction is stupid anyway. The SPL is still 12 teams (the main problem) and nobody really benefits from it.
Rightly or wrongly their punishment is killing the Scottish League Championship. It could well take Rangers a couple of seasons in the top flight to challenge Celtic anyway, they don't need to drag that out.
I would like Rangers to suffer their punishment in full (I've made my feelings about administration and knocking debts clear elsewhere) but there is no doubt that the SFL need Rangers back asap and this is a very clever way to achieve that.
Rangers didnt make the rule or create the precedent, all they have stated that if restructuring were to happen is that they be treated the same as Stranraer were in 94, a point many sellick minded people and Rangers haters cant see past.
Every club signed upto the rules before the season started, now because its big bad Rangers who MAY benefit from said rules, they dont like it, tough, its all about sporting integrity apparently...or is it?
They were told to suck it up and accept the rules when being punished for going into administration, and then had further punishments placed on them before any courts had sat to decide if they were guilty of any criminal acts (which they werent), it seems the rules should only apply as long as its not Rangers who benefit.