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.
Unless I'm missing something, Stranraer went from the third division to the second, Rangers would be going from the fourth to the third. No issue there.
It's not a precedent, it's a different situation - creating one less league, not an extra one.
<blockquote class="Quote" rel="WSS"><blockquote class="Quote" rel="randy andy">I think it's 12-12-18, as the top to divisions will play each other 3 times.</blockquote> How does it get decided who plays the third game at home?
I think it's 12-12-18, as the top to divisions will play each other 3 times.
How does it get decided who plays the third game at home?
No idea, but they've done it that way for a while, so I assume they have a system in place.
Looking at wikipedia it seems needlessly complicated in the current 10 team format, with a form prediction system used to arrange fixtures to that after the league splits into two mini leagues the teams will be likely to have played the team in their mini league 4 times (twice home, twice away). That will need to change for a 12 team format, and I can't find anything useful on how they will work the fixtures out. They would have been better off going to 2x18 team divisions, cutting the bottom 6 off to a lower regional league, and possibly introducing relegation from the bottom division.
The longer scottish footy stays crap the better All them kilts and sweaty socks wearing swedish/brazilian/danish tops or whoever England were playing in the World Cup I went to was a bit sad for me and all the jocks laughing in English fans faces when we've lost on penalties in tourneys gone by have stuck with me And unfortunately I'm not the better person where this is concerned I hope the years of nothingness and misery continue for them Scottish footy paaah
Passionate fans I'll give em that Rangers and Celtic have decent away support .... I understand the irish following of celtic but why is there such a big english interest in rangers ...
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.
Fair enough DA9, you clearly have knowledge of the Scottish league. I also don't mean this as an attack on you - it's not personal, just an opinion on what is an interesting debate. However, as much as you are quoting precedents etc, surely there simply isn't a case to answer? I've read this thread as a follower of football, not as a fan of Rangers, Celtic or any other Scottish team because the winners and losers in Scotland don't hold very much interest for me (although I do keep half an eye out for Berwick!) But Rangers' stance seems to be based partly on a misplaced sense of entitlement, but mainly on the citation of the Stranraer promotion in 1993-94 which, if anyone's interested wasn't the same thing anyway:
If you use Stranraer's promotion as the bench mark, their promotion was a no brainer because the number of divisions was being increased not decreased. The structure was clearly set out at the beginning of the season before to reduce the size of each division by having: Premier/Div 1 - 3 down 1 up Div 1/Div 2 - 5 down 1 up Div 2/New Div 3 - 8 down Div 3/Non league - 2 up
Changing the structure from 12-12-14 to 10-10-10-10
Now admittedly, unlike in 93-94 there appears to be no motivation to win the third division this year other than pride, and that's harsh on the teams in that division, particularly Rangers as it turns out, but then don't you think it was harsh on the team eighth from bottom of div 2 in 94? They got relegated to division 3! I don't think many from Rangers were up in arms about that back then. Apart from anything else, the two seasons simply do not compare. The restructures are not the same and every promoted and relegated team in 94 could arguably be said to have been promoted or relegated to roughly their appropriate position from the previous seasons standings. Moving Rangers up to Div 1 would be an obscene jump.
Any restructuring will be messy and there will always be those that benefit and those that don't, that's the truth of the matter. And at the end of the day, the fact is: Stranraer went from the 3rd tier to the 2nd tier. Rangers will go from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
Hang on a minute didn't Charles Green come out and say that he didn't want the rangers to play in the SPL? Around October last year and now they are all up in arms about restructuring and promotion closer to the SPL?
Charles green is a clown. the people running scottish football are clowns. the rangers and Celtic will ineveitably do whatever they want/have to to ensure they get what they want and two fingers up to the rest of Scotland....
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.
I have never hidden my support of Rangers on this forum, I have been to Ibrox many times and watched them south of the border in testimonials. My point being, nobody has kicked off about Stranraer and demanded they get demoted back because of a restructure, but some on here seem to be frothing at the mouth at Rangers asking to be treated by the rules and the precedent set. Let them appeal, currently in the eyes of the law they are not guilty and until proven otherwise it shall remain.
Hang on a minute didn't Charles Green come out and say that he didn't want the rangers to play in the SPL? Around October last year and now they are all up in arms about restructuring and promotion closer to the SPL?
Charles green is a clown. the people running scottish football are clowns. the rangers and Celtic will ineveitably do whatever they want/have to to ensure they get what they want and two fingers up to the rest of Scotland....
He is not asking to be in the SPL or be promoted closer to the SPL, merely to be treated farily by the same rules and precedent set previously, ie, you win the bottom tier league, they restructure the leagues, then as per Stranraer you shouldnt then have to play in the bottom tier league again next season.
If it were restructured to 5 divisions, they would merely be asking to be in the 4th tier, not the bottom 5th tier, as SFL rules state any team who wins promotion must be promoted.
They have been promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd. Whether that's the bottom tier or not is completely and utterly irrelevant, you count from the top down not the bottom up.
If the league was restructured to 5 divisions then they would be well within their rights to insist they were promoted to the 3rd tier, that is the exact situation with Stranraer. The rangers situation is not the same as Stranraer, so it sets no precedent. They have been promoted, end of. You can argue it's a shitty promotion as the league restructure means they also promoted the rest of the 4th tier teams, but they have undoubtably been promoted. The top spot of the division they were in was the 31st place in the country, the top place in the new division they are in is 25th place, they are in a higher division. Not much higher, but definitely higher. They can finish 6 places high overall than last year, and they are a promotion closer to the top division.
I'm going to abandon this thread now. 2 pages of people explaining that they have been promoted and exactly why the Stranraer ruling isn't applicable and you come back with the exact same point about the promotion rule and the Stranraer precedent. So I officially give up. What's the point of a discussion forum when the discussion involves one side completely ignoring every point raised by the other?
They have been promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd. Whether that's the bottom tier or not is completely and utterly irrelevant, you count from the top down not the bottom up.
If the league was restructured to 5 divisions then they would be well within their rights to insist they were promoted to the 3rd tier, that is the exact situation with Stranraer. The rangers situation is not the same as Stranraer, so it sets no precedent. They have been promoted, end of. You can argue it's a shitty promotion as the league restructure means they also promoted the rest of the 4th tier teams, but they have undoubtably been promoted. The top spot of the division they were in was the 31st place in the country, the top place in the new division they are in is 25th place, they are in a higher division. Not much higher, but definitely higher. They can finish 6 places high overall than last year, and they are a promotion closer to the top division.
I'm going to abandon this thread now. 2 pages of people explaining that they have been promoted and exactly why the Stranraer ruling isn't applicable and you come back with the exact same point about the promotion rule and the Stranraer precedent. So I officially give up. What's the point of a discussion forum when the discussion involves one side completely ignoring every point raised by the other?
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?
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?
They have been promoted from the 4th tier to the 3rd. Whether that's the bottom tier or not is completely and utterly irrelevant, you count from the top down not the bottom up.
If the league was restructured to 5 divisions then they would be well within their rights to insist they were promoted to the 3rd tier, that is the exact situation with Stranraer. The rangers situation is not the same as Stranraer, so it sets no precedent. They have been promoted, end of. You can argue it's a shitty promotion as the league restructure means they also promoted the rest of the 4th tier teams, but they have undoubtably been promoted. The top spot of the division they were in was the 31st place in the country, the top place in the new division they are in is 25th place, they are in a higher division. Not much higher, but definitely higher. They can finish 6 places high overall than last year, and they are a promotion closer to the top division.
I'm going to abandon this thread now. 2 pages of people explaining that they have been promoted and exactly why the Stranraer ruling isn't applicable and you come back with the exact same point about the promotion rule and the Stranraer precedent. So I officially give up. What's the point of a discussion forum when the discussion involves one side completely ignoring every point raised by the other?
There is absolutely no way that this restructuring should be happening from next season, I'm certainly with Rangers on this one. Green seems to spout a lot of rubbish, but he is right to be annoyed here. If these plans had been agreed at the beginning of the season then fine, every club would know what they are playing for and adjust their plans accordingly. To move the goal posts two thirds of the way through a season is ridiculous and totally unfair.
I completely understand your point, and you are right that it is a promotion nevertheless, but the fact is this isn't what the clubs have been playing for all season and so should not be implemented until 2014.
As an example - how do you think teams would react if the FA suddenly now decided that the FA Cup winners got a place in the Champions League, with the competition almost over? There would be uproar.
However good the idea, the integrity of any competition is seriously compromised if the prize for success is changed once that competition is already underway.
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.
Fair enough DA9, you clearly have knowledge of the Scottish league. I also don't mean this as an attack on you - it's not personal, just an opinion on what is an interesting debate. However, as much as you are quoting precedents etc, surely there simply isn't a case to answer? I've read this thread as a follower of football, not as a fan of Rangers, Celtic or any other Scottish team because the winners and losers in Scotland don't hold very much interest for me (although I do keep half an eye out for Berwick!) But Rangers' stance seems to be based partly on a misplaced sense of entitlement, but mainly on the citation of the Stranraer promotion in 1993-94 which, if anyone's interested wasn't the same thing anyway:
If you use Stranraer's promotion as the bench mark, their promotion was a no brainer because the number of divisions was being increased not decreased. The structure was clearly set out at the beginning of the season before to reduce the size of each division by having: Premier/Div 1 - 3 down 1 up Div 1/Div 2 - 5 down 1 up Div 2/New Div 3 - 8 down Div 3/Non league - 2 up
Changing the structure from 12-12-14 to 10-10-10-10
Now admittedly, unlike in 93-94 there appears to be no motivation to win the third division this year other than pride, and that's harsh on the teams in that division, particularly Rangers as it turns out, but then don't you think it was harsh on the team eighth from bottom of div 2 in 94? They got relegated to division 3! I don't think many from Rangers were up in arms about that back then. Apart from anything else, the two seasons simply do not compare. The restructures are not the same and every promoted and relegated team in 94 could arguably be said to have been promoted or relegated to roughly their appropriate position from the previous seasons standings. Moving Rangers up to Div 1 would be an obscene jump.
Any restructuring will be messy and there will always be those that benefit and those that don't, that's the truth of the matter. And at the end of the day, the fact is: Stranraer went from the 3rd tier to the 2nd tier. Rangers will go from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
No problem.
I know its not personal, I suppose my real point is that nobody would even raise this as an issue if any other team than Rangers won div 3 and then restructuring happened.
Merely sellick fans and Rangers haters looking for another reason to dig at Rangers when they did not make the rules or set the original precedent (if indeed restructuring does even happen).
Poor old Rangers getting treated like other teams. It's an outrage.
What? Any team in this predicament would be rightly annoyed.
How would the teams who have spent millions to challenge for promotion to the premier league this year feel if suddenly it was decided the premier league would merge with the championship next year and all 24 teams would be 'promoted', not only diluting the value of their achievement but also of the league they are entering into.
There is absolutely no way that this restructuring should be happening from next season, I'm certainly with Rangers on this one. Green seems to spout a lot of rubbish, but he is right to be annoyed here. If these plans had been agreed at the beginning of the season then fine, every club would know what they are playing for and adjust their plans accordingly. To move the goal posts two thirds of the way through a season is ridiculous and totally unfair.
I completely understand your point, and you are right that it is a promotion nevertheless, but the fact is this isn't what the clubs have been playing for all season and so should not be implemented until 2014.
Now that I would certainly agree with. Moving the goalposts mid-season is not a good idea.
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.
Fair enough DA9, you clearly have knowledge of the Scottish league. I also don't mean this as an attack on you - it's not personal, just an opinion on what is an interesting debate. However, as much as you are quoting precedents etc, surely there simply isn't a case to answer? I've read this thread as a follower of football, not as a fan of Rangers, Celtic or any other Scottish team because the winners and losers in Scotland don't hold very much interest for me (although I do keep half an eye out for Berwick!) But Rangers' stance seems to be based partly on a misplaced sense of entitlement, but mainly on the citation of the Stranraer promotion in 1993-94 which, if anyone's interested wasn't the same thing anyway:
If you use Stranraer's promotion as the bench mark, their promotion was a no brainer because the number of divisions was being increased not decreased. The structure was clearly set out at the beginning of the season before to reduce the size of each division by having: Premier/Div 1 - 3 down 1 up Div 1/Div 2 - 5 down 1 up Div 2/New Div 3 - 8 down Div 3/Non league - 2 up
Changing the structure from 12-12-14 to 10-10-10-10
Now admittedly, unlike in 93-94 there appears to be no motivation to win the third division this year other than pride, and that's harsh on the teams in that division, particularly Rangers as it turns out, but then don't you think it was harsh on the team eighth from bottom of div 2 in 94? They got relegated to division 3! I don't think many from Rangers were up in arms about that back then. Apart from anything else, the two seasons simply do not compare. The restructures are not the same and every promoted and relegated team in 94 could arguably be said to have been promoted or relegated to roughly their appropriate position from the previous seasons standings. Moving Rangers up to Div 1 would be an obscene jump.
Any restructuring will be messy and there will always be those that benefit and those that don't, that's the truth of the matter. And at the end of the day, the fact is: Stranraer went from the 3rd tier to the 2nd tier. Rangers will go from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
No problem.
I know its not personal, I suppose my real point is that nobody would even raise this as an issue if any other team than Rangers won div 3 and then restructuring happened.
Merely sellick fans and Rangers haters looking for another reason to dig at Rangers when they did not make the rules or set the original precedent (if indeed restructuring does even happen).
You say that but would you be kicking up a fuss about it if it was another Scottish 3rd division team? I'd predict a no. The truth of the matter is because Celtic and The Rangers are both massive clubs id why its being discussed and the problem is there will be sides taken in views about them. On this note im going to stay out but agree with any decision taking place during a season is ridiculous.
Ally McCoist is poised to agree a new pay deal that will see his £825,000 salary cut by half in the coming days.
The Rangers manager’s current remuneration — while his team play in the lower echelons — has been the subject of intense debate in the week club accounts showed an operating loss of £14.3million for the 13 months to June.
McCoist recently went public with his belief that taking a wage cut was ‘the right thing to do’, a view shared by his backroom staff of Ian Durrant and Kenny McDowall. Ally McCoist
‘The management team have been in negotiations with Craig [Mather, chief executive] and have, in fact, just agreed to take a wage cut,’ said McCoist last week. ‘I didn’t feel under pressure to do it. When I became manager, I had a contract placed in front of me and I just signed it.
‘I didn’t look at the wages or the length of contract or anything. I think it’s then a little harsh to criticise someone for doing that when you don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. But I do understand my responsibilities.
‘That’s why as a management team we’re taking a wage cut — we feel it’s the right thing to do and we can help the club.’
Sportsmail understands McCoist will see his pay drop to just over £400,000 once talks with Mather are concluded, with the wage bill of the management team falling from £1.2m to around £700,000.
McCoist’s salary was not specifically mentioned in Tuesday’s 48-page annual report but has been a matter of public record for some time.
With the club rebuilding after liquidation, supporters were dismayed to see former chief executive Charles Green made £933,000 in the period in question, while finance director Brian Stockbridge pulled in £400,000 — including a £200,000 bonus for Rangers winning the Third Division title.
£15k+ a week to the manager of a team in the 3rd division. I assume that's more than any player gets? Let's be honest here, even Nathan Prior could guide Rangers back to the top flight. Also incredible that the finance director got a 200k bonus because they won the league last season. As though that title win was ever in any doubt!
There's a reason why they ceased to exist. Sensible financial management wasn't it. They've got a very good team, can't see the point of the outlay when a far more modest squad would walk that league. I think they've just got into a mode of thinking where money is meaningless and you don't pay your debts.
Comments
It's not a precedent, it's a different situation - creating one less league, not an extra one.
Every big league in Europe has at least 18 teams in their top league. There's a reason for that; it's more entertaining than having 12 teams.
It's unbelievable how stupid the people running Scottish football are - trust me, I'm Scottish.
How does it get decided who plays the third game at home?
</blockquote>
They toss a caber
Looking at wikipedia it seems needlessly complicated in the current 10 team format, with a form prediction system used to arrange fixtures to that after the league splits into two mini leagues the teams will be likely to have played the team in their mini league 4 times (twice home, twice away). That will need to change for a 12 team format, and I can't find anything useful on how they will work the fixtures out. They would have been better off going to 2x18 team divisions, cutting the bottom 6 off to a lower regional league, and possibly introducing relegation from the bottom division.
All them kilts and sweaty socks wearing swedish/brazilian/danish tops or whoever England were playing in the World Cup I went to was a bit sad for me and all the jocks laughing in English fans faces when we've lost on penalties in tourneys gone by have stuck with me
And unfortunately I'm not the better person where this is concerned I hope the years of nothingness and misery continue for them
Scottish footy paaah
Passionate fans I'll give em that Rangers and Celtic have decent away support .... I understand the irish following of celtic but why is there such a big english interest in rangers ...
I've read this thread as a follower of football, not as a fan of Rangers, Celtic or any other Scottish team because the winners and losers in Scotland don't hold very much interest for me (although I do keep half an eye out for Berwick!) But Rangers' stance seems to be based partly on a misplaced sense of entitlement, but mainly on the citation of the Stranraer promotion in 1993-94 which, if anyone's interested wasn't the same thing anyway:
If you use Stranraer's promotion as the bench mark, their promotion was a no brainer because the number of divisions was being increased not decreased. The structure was clearly set out at the beginning of the season before to reduce the size of each division by having:
Premier/Div 1 - 3 down 1 up
Div 1/Div 2 - 5 down 1 up
Div 2/New Div 3 - 8 down
Div 3/Non league - 2 up
Changing the structure from 12-12-14 to 10-10-10-10
Now admittedly, unlike in 93-94 there appears to be no motivation to win the third division this year other than pride, and that's harsh on the teams in that division, particularly Rangers as it turns out, but then don't you think it was harsh on the team eighth from bottom of div 2 in 94? They got relegated to division 3! I don't think many from Rangers were up in arms about that back then.
Apart from anything else, the two seasons simply do not compare. The restructures are not the same and every promoted and relegated team in 94 could arguably be said to have been promoted or relegated to roughly their appropriate position from the previous seasons standings. Moving Rangers up to Div 1 would be an obscene jump.
Any restructuring will be messy and there will always be those that benefit and those that don't, that's the truth of the matter.
And at the end of the day, the fact is:
Stranraer went from the 3rd tier to the 2nd tier.
Rangers will go from the 4th tier to the 3rd tier.
No problem.
Charles green is a clown. the people running scottish football are clowns. the rangers and Celtic will ineveitably do whatever they want/have to to ensure they get what they want and two fingers up to the rest of Scotland....
My point being, nobody has kicked off about Stranraer and demanded they get demoted back because of a restructure, but some on here seem to be frothing at the mouth at Rangers asking to be treated by the rules and the precedent set. Let them appeal, currently in the eyes of the law they are not guilty and until proven otherwise it shall remain.
If it were restructured to 5 divisions, they would merely be asking to be in the 4th tier, not the bottom 5th tier, as SFL rules state any team who wins promotion must be promoted.
If the league was restructured to 5 divisions then they would be well within their rights to insist they were promoted to the 3rd tier, that is the exact situation with Stranraer. The rangers situation is not the same as Stranraer, so it sets no precedent. They have been promoted, end of. You can argue it's a shitty promotion as the league restructure means they also promoted the rest of the 4th tier teams, but they have undoubtably been promoted. The top spot of the division they were in was the 31st place in the country, the top place in the new division they are in is 25th place, they are in a higher division. Not much higher, but definitely higher. They can finish 6 places high overall than last year, and they are a promotion closer to the top division.
I'm going to abandon this thread now. 2 pages of people explaining that they have been promoted and exactly why the Stranraer ruling isn't applicable and you come back with the exact same point about the promotion rule and the Stranraer precedent. So I officially give up. What's the point of a discussion forum when the discussion involves one side completely ignoring every point raised by the other?
C'mon The 'Shire !
I completely understand your point, and you are right that it is a promotion nevertheless, but the fact is this isn't what the clubs have been playing for all season and so should not be implemented until 2014.
However good the idea, the integrity of any competition is seriously compromised if the prize for success is changed once that competition is already underway.
Merely sellick fans and Rangers haters looking for another reason to dig at Rangers when they did not make the rules or set the original precedent (if indeed restructuring does even happen).
How would the teams who have spent millions to challenge for promotion to the premier league this year feel if suddenly it was decided the premier league would merge with the championship next year and all 24 teams would be 'promoted', not only diluting the value of their achievement but also of the league they are entering into.
The Rangers manager’s current remuneration — while his team play in the lower echelons — has been the subject of intense debate in the week club accounts showed an operating loss of £14.3million for the 13 months to June.
McCoist recently went public with his belief that taking a wage cut was ‘the right thing to do’, a view shared by his backroom staff of Ian Durrant and Kenny McDowall.
Ally McCoist
‘The management team have been in negotiations with Craig [Mather, chief executive] and have, in fact, just agreed to take a wage cut,’ said McCoist last week. ‘I didn’t feel under pressure to do it. When I became manager, I had a contract placed in front of me and I just signed it.
‘I didn’t look at the wages or the length of contract or anything. I think it’s then a little harsh to criticise someone for doing that when you don’t know what’s going to happen in the future. But I do understand my responsibilities.
‘That’s why as a management team we’re taking a wage cut — we feel it’s the right thing to do and we can help the club.’
Sportsmail understands McCoist will see his pay drop to just over £400,000 once talks with Mather are concluded, with the wage bill of the management team falling from £1.2m to around £700,000.
McCoist’s salary was not specifically mentioned in Tuesday’s 48-page annual report but has been a matter of public record for some time.
With the club rebuilding after liquidation, supporters were dismayed to see former chief executive Charles Green made £933,000 in the period in question, while finance director Brian Stockbridge pulled in £400,000 — including a £200,000 bonus for Rangers winning the Third Division title.
£15k+ a week to the manager of a team in the 3rd division. I assume that's more than any player gets?
Let's be honest here, even Nathan Prior could guide Rangers back to the top flight.
Also incredible that the finance director got a 200k bonus because they won the league last season. As though that title win was ever in any doubt!