Rangers FC Signing Plans Scuppered By “Rules”

This morning’s Daily Record reports that Mr McCoist’s plans to sign more stars to his already international laden squad today may be scuppered by red tape.

The problem?

The SFL rule re not having more than 22 registered players of 21 or over.

Regular readers will know I have been writing about this ever since Rangers FC was admitted to SFL3 so I assume the talented regulatory team at Ibrox were well aware of it before today.

As I mentioned earlier this week, it looked as if there were 14 players counting against the limit plus 3 more who would be counted from January 1.

The Record has pointed out though that Rangers FC has retained the registrations of 5 of the players who refused to TUPE transfer to newco.

This still leaves three slots for over 21 signings but if filled and without departures they would exceed the limit on New Years Day.

The rules or “red tape” as the Record calls it might stop Mr McCoist signing new players. The rules are what Mr Green is using to try to get money for players who were never employed by his company.

The lessons of Shylock and the Merchant of Venice come to mind.

Will a “learned judge” grant Rangers FC an exemption? Remember the SFA, SPL and SFL pledged to “facilitate” entry to SFL3.

Would Mr Longmuir’s SFL allow more players to be signed, as a result of the dispute with the 5 players? In doing so, this would thwart some of the effects of the registration embargo.

Today could be interesting!


Filed under Uncategorized

59 responses to “Rangers FC Signing Plans Scuppered By “Rules”

  1. John Burns

    Paul, perhaps we might have McCoist, Jardine, and Green, entertaining the “succulent lambs” of the Daily Record, over lunch, with news of their hastily arranged meeting with Bill Longmuir, when Portia’s impassioned plea to Shylock will be adapted for him –

    “The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
    It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
    Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
    It blesseth him that gives and him that takes

    In other words, change the rules, or we will set the ‘Billy Boys’ on you!!

  2. carl31

    The Record has pointed out though that Rangers FC has retained the registrations of 5 of the players who refused to TUPE transfer to newco.

    So, am I right in thinking…
    … if the club decides to challenge the non-Tupe of a number of players who didn’t opt to transfer across from last season’s Rangers, they retain their registration? This in turn reduces the number of ‘free over 21 slots’ in their squad , since this is limited to 22, which in turn places a barrier to incoming experienced transfers this transfer window (keeping in mind that after the current window “slams shut” [please see Daily Record, ad nauseam], The Rangers cannot transfer in any players again until the January transfer window of 2014)?
    If so, it seems a bit rich to blame the SFA for this, when it was Groan/The Rangers was chasing money when he challenged the transfers of certain players to other clubs (indeed Groan in a radio interview yesterday mentioned that Naismith remains in the count of The Rangers’ over21s even though he lines up for Everton and has already played for them). Its also notable that the SFA was acting on BEHALF of The Rangers in this challenge.

    IMO, Groan would have known that registration was retained – since he can be described as many things but an ‘idiot’ is NOT one of them – and this seems like another example of blaming the authorities/anyone else for actions that The Rangers themselves are responsible for.

    On further examination its not a bad play…
    – he gets a chance of transfer fee or compensation or some form of ‘go-away-and-gie-us-peace money’ from the other clubs involved with the 5 players
    – he limits the number of inward transfers that the rules allow, and this gives him a get out when telling his manager that he’s not getting more players
    – he gets out of flak from the fans since he can blame the SFA

    … and lets face it, Groan has some previous.

  3. OH FOR GOD’S SAKE!!! Sorry Paul, but I will no longer make any attempt to be reasonable with these stupid clowns. The whole of Scottish football – and no doubt quite a large chunk of Scottish society in general – has bent over backwards to accommodate this new club, basically because of the massive support it has purloined from the former Glasgow Rangers FC, and the belief that Green & Co would at THE VERY LEAST follow the most basic of the rules of running the club as a professional football concern.

    But no. At almost every turn they have shown themselves to be unable to do this – always trying to find the easiest route by getting rules bent, having newspaper reports skewed or imaginary blame apportioned, not to mention just plain bad will. It must be time to say enough is enough.

    Over the past week, top Scottish football teams have shown themselves to be capable of delivering decent results on the park – performances the whole nation can be proud of (open your eyes Mr Levein) – and given fans hope that maybe this could be the start of a renaissance (hey, we’re football fans, we love romance). Yet all we’re STILL getting from Ibrox is continued embarrassment from a group of people unable to follow even the most basic rules set out for a professional football club.

    I now fervently hope BDO make the Green sale null and void, HMRC hammer them, as much as possible is sold off and the long-suffering creditors get as much as can be raised from the mess. While D&P, former directors etc are dealt with, I hope groups of TRUE Rangers supporters get together and start a brand new football club that they can nurture and be proud of – who knows, one day they’ll get back to the top and even get a team into Europe.

    But PLEASE, will someone get rid of the clowns that are continuing to embarrass the rest of us by thinking they are a serious footballing club. They are incompetent and unacceptable. Get rid.

  4. Rules?? You want to apply the rules to them?? This one is fifteen years old – and apparently that makes a BIG difference!

  5. Stu

    They also need to watch out for when some of the youth squad grow up and turn 21 in the New Year. That’s a great development strategy right there…

  6. A rule to say they have to pay tax…..a rule to say that newcos can’t play in Europe for three years…..a rule that says players’ earnings have to be declared…..can’t keep fraudulently obtained titles…..they have to pay their debts…..can’t keep players who don’t want to stay…..can’t get money for players they don’t have contracts with…..and now, they can’t have more over-21 players than anybody else. Just because of rules!
    Next thing you know, goals against them will be allowed to count – even if they are drawing 1-1!
    You people and your rules; see how far you get without Rangers to hold your League together for you.

  7. ecojon

    I really think it’s time that the whole of Scotland got off Rangers’ case ah mean we never had to bother wi rules before so why should we now!

  8. JimBhoy

    Charlie Bhoy is definitely no Daft, he is pulling a flanker on Ally and All the Rangers fans, one day his plan will become clear and he will be on a beach in France swapping stories and having a laugh with Whyte and the Duff and Phelps boys…

  9. Miky burt

    Same old Sevco always cheatin

  10. ecojon

    Just looked at the Record story and it actually starts off:

    AN SFL rule prevents clubs from signing more than 22 players over 21 years of age in a bid to help develop youth talent.

    I think that says it all about Rangers and how much developing of youth talent they will be getting involved with. You talent is way down the list of priorities for Green – he needs results now as much silverware as possible to boost the chance of success for his share flotation.

    Green will have made his money and be gone before any youngsters will be ‘earning’ cash so they don’t figure on the radar in the short-term.

    If they were ‘blooded’ through the SFL divisions they could develop into a valuable asset, as they gained experience, for not only Rangers but Scotland. So let’s hope that the SFA/SFL don’t turn their back on youth development because that is what any relaxation of the rule to allow Rangers their ‘triumphal’ march would actually mean.

  11. @EJ
    as I said on earlier posts TRFC have no desire to utilise the training facilities at their disposal, now thats an idea….(disposal), Lack of applied devotion to the youth and under 19/20 leagues has been obvious for the last 3 seasons with a few exeptions, who when they could have without exception left the club.

    Compare it with Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen, Hamilton Ross County and Celtic as well as the other clubs in both SPL and SFL 1, every single one of them with poorer facilities other than CFC., have produced some outstanding talent which is being shared through the other divisions in the form of loan and transfers at respectable levels which allow the clubs to pay better wages and benefits to all players. Keeping the money in the main within Scottish football.

    You look at the 1st and 2nd divs and they are filled with experienced ex youth players from CFC AFC both HFCs’ and the likes.

    This is the lifes blood of the clubs and Scottish football.

    As Kenny so eloquently put it earlier, and I have been saying now for weeks, enough is enough, lets just hope they all go away, fed up hearing about them now.

  12. Pensionerbhoy

    Once upon a time, back in May 2012 actually, fans of Scottish football clubs, those that then existed I mean, rose up in revolt. The reason for their united action was the threat to the integrity and sportsmanship of Scottish football. The uprising was instigated primarily because there was a very distinct possibility that football club chairs would vote for a newly formed club which planned to use the assets and supporters of a club named Rangers F.C., that played its particular and peculiar brand of football at a stadium called Ibrox Park in Govan on the South side of the City of Glasgow, into the S.P.L. because it was deserving, in spite of the infamy and destruction surrounding it, of special consideration from all quarters. As cover, should this unparalleled and seemingly unjustified attempt at rule-bending fail, plans were afoot within the corridors of power to induce the birth of this new footballing entity by catapulting it, without the normal procedures, directly into the First Division with the intention of speeding up its entry into the S.P.L. Thus the conception of a phoenix football club in the minds of cunning and manipulative financial sharks seemed destined to reach fulfilment through a crafty caesarean operation by the surgeons of the football boardrooms. Other issues that pushed non-Rangers supporters to the brink have been frequently discussed elsewhere and I will comment only that they definitely existed, many and varied. Whatever the particular reasons of individual supporters for taking up arms, all of them formed a united front against this embryo being granted a privileged entrance to any division. The peoples’ voice was so strong that all bar one chair, and even he U-turned from out and out support to vacillating abstinence, to the eternal alienation of his own fans, of the S.P.L. clubs and the vast majority of those in the lower leagues, backed down and the embryo had to start, granted still with some rule bending, in the lowest echelon of Scottish professional football. It was unambiguous proof that, in spite of the profits and profiteers of doom and gloom, for the fans of the sport there were values in the game far greater than financial considerations and that fan power had clout. Because of their suspicious involvement in all of the intrigues, the Scottish football authorities were embroiled in the fray. They were mixed in with a whole raft of others over and above club chairs in the pot of manipulation. In fact, for the well informed (thanks to sites like this), they were as much, if not more, to blame for the chaos, confusion and mayhem as anybody. Sadly, once the dust had settled on the original issue of the embryos appointed place in the leagues, the battle seemed to be brought to a standstill with only the odd voice of dissent heard way out in the front lines, far from the centre of the conflict. Thus the S.F.A. and the S.P.L. were allowed to slip under the radar of disapproval and return to knee bending, sycophantic accommodations for the infant club. And so it has continued for month on end since May 2012 with delay, prevarication, perversion. The behaviour of the governing bodies of Scottish football, especially when fronted by Messrs Regan, Doncaster and Longmuir, has been at the least baffling more often immoral and verging on the criminal (in terms of Scottish football at least). Yet they are threatened by mere words of criticism or moaning complaints. I firmly believe that they are a real danger to the regeneration, if not the very survival, of Scottish football. To my mind, another fan-powered campaign is required to see them ousted before there truly is an Armageddon. It is obvious that, in the absence of any concerted effort to resolve or even recognise the problem by club chairs or boards, with perhaps one or two notable exceptions, it is once more in the hands of the supporters to take the necessary action. Paul has referred in his article to the Shylock v Antonio plot in the Merchant of Venice. My opinion is, that unlike the ‘sweet Portia’ who sought a way out, the powers-that-be in Scottish football are quite happy for Mr. Green to draw blood in his pursuit of extracting the heart from Scottish football to satisfy his own and probably certain others financial ambitions and unashamed greed. I can see Mr. Green right now earnestly pleading for unfair winds to blow the ships of Scottish football from their coarse but, unlike Shylock, not purely to provide an opportunity to complete his plans for revenge. Methinks this particular Yorkshireman has much bigger returns in mind. If only we could get to the truth by overhearing his whispering asides.

  13. Stuart

    The BBC have announced that St Mirren have signed Newcastle’s Paul Dummett on loan. Does that leave only eight Newcastle players to be loaned to Rangers?

  14. Glazert Tim

    Paul, I fully expect Longmuir, SFA and the MSM good news brigade to have their heads so far up the Sevco franchise arses, that King Arthur would have difficulty removing them.

    No change there then. I refer my learned friend to the Radio Clyde lunchtime news, whereby tales of Rangers ‘fantasy’ signings headlined above all others.

  15. Martin

    Can anyone explain to me why the SFL has a rule which limits the number of employees over the age of 21.
    A rule clearly indefensible in employment law across the EU.

    • Stuart


      Rule 115.2 states “A club shall be permitted to register, at any one time, up to a maximum of 22 players, who have reached the age of 21 years on 1st January of the appropriate year. The maximum number of 22 players includes players registered by means of a temporary transfer. Additional players may be registered by a club, however such players must be under 21 years of age on 1st January of the appropriate year.”

      Clubs can employ as many 21+ year old players as they like, but only 22 of them can be registered and only registered players can be named in the team.

      • Martin

        this looks like a restriction on employment based on age, as the players over the number specified in the rule would not be permitted to ply their trade.

      • Stuart

        In theory I agree, but age based registration limits are not uncommon in EU football. I am sure that I recall reading that UEFA negotiated the legality, or at least the acceptance of them with the appropriate EU department officials before they were introduced.

  16. Martin

    Taken from Eurofound.

    Within the field of employment, discrimination and equality apply in relation to gender, ethnic or racial origins and nationality, disability, sexuality, religion, transgender and age. Discrimination and equality are governed by the key principle that a worker should receive ‘no less favourable treatment’.

    • Martin

      @ Stuart

      not sure that ‘legality’ or ‘acceptance’ would have been negotiable but if you can point me to further reading I’ll be glad to revise my opinion.

      • Stuart

        @ Martin

        Sorry, My recollections come from newspaper/magazine articles from several years back. It all stemmed from the Bosman case. UEFA were concerned that full freedom of contract would mean that there would be no incentive for clubs to develop young talent if they could leave for free at the end of their initial contract and negotiated some limits that allowed clubs to derive some level of benefit for the time and expense invested in developing young players. I think there was some provision for that included in EU employment law, but that it has to be agreed on a case by case basis. I think that was the basis of other age based rules in football.

      • ecojon



        Should answer most of your questions

  17. granite man

    God I’m sick of the Scottish Media. There are only two words that really describe them – namely Rusty Trombones!

  18. ecojon

    I just cannot believe the platform that Green is given without a single sensible question being asked by the BBC reporter:

    Green said the hunt for players had been held up as both he and manager Ally McCoist had faced Scottish Football Association disciplinary hearings on Thursday.

    “Alistair and I have, unfortunately, spent six hours in Hampden for the wrong reasons, when what we ought to have been doing is speaking to agents and speaking to players.”

    When are the SFA going to wake-up to the fact that they cannot tip-toe around this guy. They should be issuibng a press release stating that he were both there because of rule breaches of which they were found guilty even though they got out of jail free cards. But now it’s the SFA’s fault that they haven’t been able to sign players.

    And then green adds: “Ahead of this transfer ban being put in place, we still have the ludicracy of not being able to sign the number of players we’d like to bring in, because the players who walked out on their contract are still included in our quota,”

    They are still in his quota because he refused to allow their registration to be transferred. It’s a straight business choice either he hamstrings his registration of new players and tries to get money out of the clubs the players have gone to or he doesn’t and signs up to the limit without them being included in his quota.

    I’m beginning to think not being stoopid is what has prevented me from buying a £100million + business for nothing. Oh and also the fact that when I join any organisation I learn the rules by which it and I have to operate – obviously a waste of time.

  19. Martin

    @ Stuart

    I’m sure you are right that a club can derive a benefit when developed talent moves on, though this is calls for agreement between the clubs football governing bodies and the player concerned. This would seem to be fair in football terms but I don’t think it has been contested in court (I stand to be corrected)

    An individual (player) has rights under employment law across the EU to go to any employer they choose at the end of their contract
    of employment.

  20. Martin

    @ ecojon

    The Bosman case does not provide any avenue for discrimination on the basis of age in employment.

  21. @martin, why all of a sudden are rules that have been in place for years, and that have been questioned by precisely NO ONE, being questioned now? Any half-decent football management team would have had this covered ages ago.

    And anyway, as most football people have been pointing out for months now, surely the staff already at the club – ie, the former famous GLASGOW RANGERS – is good enough to get through the next season and a half playing in the LOWER REACHES of Scottish football? Jock Wallace must be spinning in his grave.

    • Martin


      my point has nothing to do with football, it’s simply about employment law within the EU. Not as important as football, but interesting to me at least. 🙂

      • ecojon


        There is nothing simple about employment law anywhere and in particular at a Euro-wide level. However, it has been accepted that in Europe that age is a factor where discriminatrion can take place without an offence bein g committed under Employment Legislation.

        There are other employments I believe, possibly in the emergency services, where I believe age discrimination is not held to be illegal but I am not as up to date with Euro-legislation as I once was so that may have changed although I doubt if the minimum age requirements will have changed and they may well remain within the purvey of National Governments such as the lower Minimum National Wage Rates for the 18-20s and even lower for the 16-17s.

        You replied: ‘show me the the bit were discrimination on the basis of age is allowed under EU law. I must have missed it!’

        You know Martin – politeness costs nothing and the insertion of the word ‘please’ helps a lot when you are asking to have the blindfold removed from your eyes.

        I am a great believer in those seeking truth and light making that journey for themself as it is of more benefit to their understanding. I would therefore suggest you go back and re-read the piece which gives plenty of clues as to where you head next and I will give you a few hints such as use google and search terms like home grown player; FA; SFA; age discrimination; Euro legislation.

        That will take you beyond the date of the article I referred you to and it will get you to the point where my knowledge currently stands but you will have the satisfaction of knowing you did it all by yourself. Of course that is assuming you have reasonable research skills and an open mind 🙂

        I would be more obliging except you have just told @Kenny McCaffrey:
        “my point has nothing to do with football, it’s simply about employment law within the EU. Not as important as football, but interesting to me at least.”

        And yet Martin you began this thread with: “Can anyone explain to me why the SFL has a rule which limits the number of employees over the age of 21. A rule clearly indefensible in employment law across the EU.”

        No confusion in that you KNOW it is ‘clearly indefensible’. I don’t really believe in wasting time with closed minds and I was inly trying to be helpful but see that you remain the same as always. Enjoy your darkness 🙂

  22. charliedon


    I’m becoming quite depressed at the SFA’s quite pathetic failure to deal with Green (and McCoist). They’ve let them off the hook with their very soft penalty and then the man further belittles them with even more criticism.
    It’s also quite unacceptable in my view that Rangers are trying to pay a fee for a player when they appear not yet to have settled all their existing football debts as per the agreement with the SFA. Surely it would have been appropriate and prudent for the SFA to insist all the debts were cleared before Rangers could be allowed to pay out any further transfer fees? Or even before they were granted their licence?

  23. ecojon


    I did notice in one of the early reports this morning that if the two Hearts players signed then Green said he would pay up even the final instalment previously due to Hearts and not payable until next year.

    If it’s only the one that goes I don’t know what then but everything that comes out of Green’s mouth has to be deciphered very carefully and I am amazed that the SFA still don’t suss that.

    • charliedon


      I thought I noticed a hint about that earlier, but it was really the other debts to non- Scottish clubs I was alluding to. Everything seems to have gone quiet on that front.
      To change the subject a little, another issue which has been nagging away at the back of my mind is the matter of the Appellate Tribunal. I thought the tribunal had to reconvene to “rubber stamp” the agreement about the transfer ban between Sevco and the SFA, however unethical that might appear. But there has been no word and it seems the SFA don’t intend to reconvene the tribunal, but just to let matters lie. Now, I could see an argument for that approach (although I wouldn’t agree with it) if the SFA and Sevco had agreed that the original sanction should simply stand. But it didn’t. The PERIOD of the transfer ban was changed so the decision of the tribunal was, in effect, varied by the SFA, which therefore circumvented its own independent judicial process. It is irrelevant that only the period of the ban was altered, any change to the decision at all is a revised decision. As a result, a sanction has been imposed on Sevco which has not been decided within the SFA’s own judicial process and that process remains incomplete.
      Perhaps the SFA would like it to, but I don’t think the matter can be allowed to rest there. Do you, or perhaps Paul McC, have any view on this?

      • ecojon


        I think it probably one for Paul but I think it has become water under the bridge and I reckon Green has probably reimbursed the legal costs involved as well.

        In a sense Green keep getting himself into cul-de-sacs: He knows if he goues outwith the footballing structures to the courts again he will be hammered in Europe. He will also have been warned in no uncertain terms about any repeat of his bigoterie nonsense will have dire consequences.

        At the end of the day he strikes me as a bullying-style blusterer but he is in this for the cash and I don’t think he’ll let anything get in the way of that. The idiots that have bought STs on anything other than to provide footballing support for their club will come to realise that Green won’t be beating many big drums from now on and when he goes then hopefully a person with a petter command of English and French will replace him 🙂

        I don’t think the particular tribunal in question will ever reconvene as I’m sure the decision will have been taken that it has been overtaken by events or ‘circumstances, my dear bhoy, circumstances’.

        Not saying its correct but defo par for the course.

      • George3

        The tribunal surely related to oldco and all the SFA did was to take their decision and make it a condition of SFA membership entry to newco?

  24. Stuart

    I have been waiting for an hour for the BBC website to confirm whether Templeton has signed and whether the midnight deadline was met.

    The way that various rules have been interpreted to accommodate Rangers has left me paranoid enough to wonder whether he might have signed but missed the deadline and whether the SFA may be trying to fudge the issue to allow the signing anyway.

    It’s been announced that the SFA’s computer crashed five minutes before the deadline.

    I did mention that I’m paranoid, didn’t I?

    • ecojon


      What’s interesting is that the Rangers FC site went down 2/3 times approaching deadline. Might have been excessive server load but perhaps they had their own probs. Maybe Green isn’t so sure about paying cash for Templeton – has he actually paid any cash for anyone else?

      • Stuart

        @ Eecojon

        Hearts have confirmed the transfer, so presumably they have agreed the fee and think it will be paid this time.

        The faulty SFA computer was, or included, the one used to process the transfer registrations This machine presumably automatically recorded such significant details such as the time the registration was completed. Presumably the crash would have resulted in this information being noteded on paper and the data entered retrospectively once the computer was functioning again?

        The official time finally entered would of course have been totally accurate. I just found it slightly inconvenient that the first unofficial announcement that the player had signed, the software crash, and the expiry of the deadline all happened so close together.

  25. John Burns

    Only one signing – Ally ” We need bodies – we have to get bodies in – substantial bodies – we are losing players.”

    So only Templeton comes in [ really what is the boy thinking about]

    There is no money available, even to pay more wages. Edu, Goian, Bocanegra and Broadfoot were ‘shooed oot’, right off the wage bill, with little fuss.

    Another cracker from Green to ‘cover his ass’ [does he think we are all as gullible as the ‘bears] . He says that they were stopped from signing more players because they had to be at the SFA offices for six hours – aye right!!!

    People are discussing what will happen to the Sevco team on away days, on bog-like grounds, in the dead of winter – however, and perhaps more to the point, what will happen to Sevco, the business, round about November and December – the season ticket money will be all gone and they will be living on ‘add-on’ gate receipts every other week?

    Belly-up again by Christmas is a real possibility

    • ecojon

      @John Burns

      To be honest I reckon Green will get Rangers to an AIM Flotation stage – cash could run out before then but the investors will have to chip in a bit more to fund the process. They don’t have any another choice or they lose the lot.

      I am also not sure that Rangers will go down the swannee as I think the presence of Ahley is very significant. He’s got his feet under the table and able to learn all sorts about the financial mysteries of Rangers. I believe he is a good contender to buy the club. That could be a good thing as I don’t think he would be intimidated by the support and he actually might be strong enough to deal with the baggage surrounding Rangers. I don’t think we should overlook hos important he could be to Zeus Capital who are undoubtedly the real power at Rangers and if it suits them it’s Cheerio Charlie.

      I agree on timetable as I think the end of the year beginning of next could be the crunch time. We should never discount the financial advantage that Rangers may retain by being ‘debt-free’ and we really must make hay in Europe over the next few seasons to clear all debts and have a fully-funded squad from within our revenue streams.

      • I know one of your “fixations” in the politest and warmest of terms and with no offence intended, is the AIM listing EJ but truthfully while I agree entirely with you that its Greens ambition do you really honestly believe that having forked out for solidarity ST’s the blue noses will be dumb enough to waste more many in the attempt to keep Green and co in business?

        I my opinion at the top of the expectations you have 50,000 paying £100 each for a wee share in the “club” again. Its extermely unlikely but this would provide £5m. The realistic total will likely be less than £1m given historic reflection, even under DM they “walked away”

        I have been doing some feeling out in investor circles over the past few weeks and the general feeling is that the “media” attention and the struggling club status does not “fit well within investors portfolio”.

        This was an interesting insight in comparison to 2-3 months ago when I made similar enquiries. Another point made was that the “investment” was “unqualified” with too many issed that remain to be resolved.

        With this undercurrent of reluctance it invest in this vehicle I don’t believe that any sizable individual investments can be counted on, I may of course be proved wrong, so this leaves group investors and we come back effectively to the rolling investments of Greens own consortium which is resticted by the capital under its control. The names he has already put out there are not going to invest heavily as individuals but may consider group investment through Green and co. However I doubt the capital raising potential here will exceed £10m.

        Combined you are looking at around £11m.

        The individuals do not want to come in and be “visible” the group will ensure annominity and acceptence under the SFA regs. However the cost of putting this together along with Greens fees will be at least 10% more likely 12-12.5% of the capital raised.

        2 questions,
        what is the capital raised being raised for? the club has all the facilities it needs, they now have a settled squad for the next 16 months and cannot “improve” it due to the transfer ban.
        Why would I invest in a club to pay for operating expenses? This is the daily management responsibility.

        You don’t invest in a business that has no projected short, medium or long term business plan. Truthfully I can’t see that Green has one. He actually as an individual has now clearly shown himself as an empty can that only makes a noise when its kicked.

        I don’t honestly see the “ppl” coming forward to complete the Green dream.

        Its not the most attractive investments available globally just now but should it be offered you can be sure I will like you go through the prosectus with a very fine tooth comb.

  26. gerrybhoy

    Did Green pay Rapid the money they are due by midnight last night as i understand UEFA had ordered them to do so .
    Good atricle in todays scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/glenn-gibbons-charity-shop-signings-betray-reduced-ambition-at-rangers-1-2500947

  27. Martin

    @ ecojon

    I have this wonderful image of an emergency football team (all players over 21) turning up to save the day.

    You are right there are legal age restrictions in law, as I understand it these are usually based on issues of competence, experience and maturity.

    Turning to football again (yes really) players can and do perform perfectly well under the age of 21 and indeed over 21. A player may well be restricted in their employment prospects if the SFLs restriction on players over 21, prevents them from finding work.

    I have seen the light! 🙂

  28. ecojon


    With hindsight you will see that the original posting I referred you to discussed the training issues and the compensation that applied in that aspect re young players.

    It is also very well to have no age discrimination per se but in football there is also a question of personal contracts and the damages awarded to a club who has lost a player just walking out on his contract against the club he is going to in reality put a heavy damper on that legal ‘right’ in the real world.

  29. ecojon

    I notice that the BBC Scotland today are still trotting out the Green excuses about being at a tribunal on Thursday and walk-away players still counting towards their total.

    The nonsense is good enough to work with deluded Rangers supporters but with the Beeb and a reporter who works in Scotland – I’ll need to be careful or I’ll catch that paranoia thing 🙂

    I mean some of these prospects that weren’t signed seem to have been having the ruler run over them for weeks at Murray Park – looks as though Ally was showing terrible indecision about whether to sign them or get rid of them. Maybe it was the perpendicular line test that betrayed a list to the left.

    Great fun watching the antics of the Darkside about a new start blessing himself before going onto the pitch. To be fair a lot of Bears – probably the majority – said they couldn’t care less and the rabid ones backed-down a bit against the opposition but only as far as conceding that it would be OK if he did it in the tunnel out of sight of the fans.

    You honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry at them. With all the problems they face as a club and still will face and this is what agitates some of them.

    • Stuart


      Ally didn’t sign those trialists because he didn’t see them as being top quality SPL standard players. Obviously the club would struggle to get an away point in SFL division 3 matches with players of that pedigree in the team!

      Oh, and wait for the next set of complaints about excessive punishments dolled out to Rangers. After all, they have been punished by having Ally and CG forcibly detained for 6 hours in a disciplinary hearing in order to keep them from signing new players before the embargo kicks in!

  30. ecojon


    And the SFA faked a computer malfunction in a bid to lose the registration emails LMAO

  31. mick

    sallys signing still dont alter the fact that scotlands newest club sevco will struggle no matter who they sign all the signing talk was to highjack the news headlines and to delude the deluded even more. they only got templton from hearts all that noise for 1 player what a joke ,the new club is celtic were well cool in the market signings covering 3 contenents africa south america and europe, top universial players and not paying out lots of the money they have earned, well stroud 2loans and 1 under 1.5mil so thats plenty of money in the kitty for bills and foundations so thats our club well stable on the other hand sevco struggleing to stop the world laughing at the tribute they pay to old co rangers have landed templeton of hearts that to me is a right good snigger as comicial ally he was wanting six quality signings div 3 hes in lol what a joke http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,12602_8031266,00.html

    thats sevco not able to buy for 2 seasons although am sure the sfa will find a way round to suit if need be as they useually do 2 seasons div3 will be well tough and 2 theres lots of tough times ahead for sevco money and playing field also just to recap the sfa punishment was well lienent for sal and cha throw week.

    • Every word is soo very true Mick everyone including many on here expected TRFC to walk through unopposed the 3 divs and rtn. This is the least of the on park footballing problems that sally will encounter, there are far greater tests ahead and while they may get their act together and gain promotion it is not and never was gunteed. time is now running out on a lot of issues, finances are good for 3 months maximum, operating has not been shaved that much, more investigation will out the bottom line “new” operating costs and stretch them, wonder if the SFA will do the same without having to do the investigations………….tick tick tick…………….absolutely no pun intended

  32. JimBhoy

    @ecojon typical of The rangers to mess around with other people/clubs..!! They caused havoc at the start of this season for so many clubs.

  33. JimBhoy

    As part of the SFA conditions, can the rangers actually replace any players who leave?

  34. ecojon


    No that is not allowed what they have to do is replace the one who has left with 2 other players 🙂

  35. Geddy Lee.

    How long before the sevcovians start claiming it’s “discrimination” to only allow 22 on the field at one time.

    Surely that’s illegal too LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s