Mr Scruff

But Stenhousemuir have confirmed that they voted for Div3. A lot of hearsay doing the rounds...

I don't disagree, but I'm saying there's not 'no reason'.

They may not want to be explicit since we do share a city populated by fans that may be grossly antagonised by this? It is a reason....

I can actually only find QotS as confirmed 'no'. Don't know about other 'nos' or abstentions (were abstentions allowed). All a bit strange.

Well, I thought it had. Not so sure now...

As of today we still are (and have been for a few weeks). That'll change if/when Sevco Scotland Ltd are granted a license. But we'll still be the second highest Glasgow team for some time (unless we get relegated this season).

The funny thing is, that if it hadn't been confirmed elsewhere who the clubs who voted 'no' were, you could still read our statement as leaving open the possibility that we voted in favour... Maybe we're trying to maintain a 'dignified silence' with our powder dry?

Actually a much more dignified response. Hopefully all this SPL2 chat can juts evaporate...

I just can't see that happening. I realise I may be naive, but it's far too risky for any of the clubs that might be involved. And there just isn't time. I CAN see it being established 'by invitation only' for either January (implying summer football and a shortened 2012/13 season) or 2013/14, with "Rangers" serving their ban...

It would be suicide for the clubs were that to happen. Anyone who tries this would know that their days in office will be numbered...

Can they not show some dignity? Sounded like they might have from Longmuir's statement - but that's far from dignified.

Clyde indicated this morning they would vote 'yes' to that so it's not them...

Given that otherwise it's U16s go free then probably not. If you go to more than one game this season then it evens out to be excellent value. But I know what you mean. Just think what attendances might be like with a club 'child minding' facility...

100%. I've been making this very point all the way through this. There is an alternative and a classic 'win-win' available here. The fact that this hsas't been proposed is actually a sign of lack of any real leadership. Any organisation faced with this would be proposing something similar - but we haven't seen a single proposal along these lines. I believe that a yes-no-yes vote today would be a start in delivering this, though. Unless we are to be blind-sided by an SPL-SFA cabal and then it really would be civil war. As a poster said elsewhere, why is the Dundee-Dunfermline vote last and why has that not been resolved by the SPL? A bit fishy...

Can't see how that would work. Surely ND and SR are employed by different organisations? It'd be the same as them having a vote of 'no confidence' in Rupert Murdoch - pointless. Unless there's some form of statement suggesting no confidence in working with organisations lead by them to deliver the structural change implied by resolution ii....

I suppose while the 'league structure reform' card is effectively on the table then he does have some role to play. To be fair. But it does make you wonder why they haven't made moves to fill the club 12 space. The SPL are still pushing an agenda for their own benefit,,which belies the smugness of some of their support....

I really hope that's true. But I have a sneaking suspicion some sort of 'fudge' is on its way...

Absolutely. It's one thing I've thoroughly enjoyed over the last few weeks - seeing ND in particular being shown up as a buffoon. Surprised by Regan though. I thought he might have been a decent appointment. But his mis-steps have been almost breathtaking. And maybe more to come...

A quick response. I'm talking about leagues in general, but with a nod to the Scottish structure. Note that 'rigged' isn't actually a word I would use. Leagues are artificially structured. Their size, measures of success and failure, competitiveness and how the levels relate to eah other are all 'communally determined' in some way. I think the Scottish structure could be much better on all of these levelss Raw sporting integrity for me is having confidence that, when you start a season, you know what's to play for and it will be accounted correctly. When you watch a match the game is administered and adjudicated properly. Both those things will hold true I'm sure irrespective of which league 'Rangers' play in. Which is why this is not 'the line' for me. As I say we have been much more unfairly treated by league structures in the recent past. And there's actually a Thistle fan suggesting that they'll maybe follow Motherwell if Rangers play in SFL1 - the team that was the major beneficiary of that unfairness - incredible.

And I see that they're doing a hospitality breakfast for £10 that includes a half time pie. Another decent initiative. Really looking forward to this one...

I don't know which way the club will vote. But I see the latest SFL statements, and the wording of resolution ii tomorrow both being compatible with the club's last statement (ie they would vote yes to resolution ii). They could argue that they didn't vote for 'Rangers' to be admitted to SFL1 this way, despite that being the obvious consequence. As 'Fellow Traveller' said elsewhere, they're missing an open goal...

It's your characterisation of football being 'rigged' in this way (a view others share). It's not one I subscribe to. The way the league is structured is always artificial. The game in this sense is always 'rigged'. If the actual matches I went to were 'rigged' or if the league we were in wasn't accounted properly then I'd agree and I wouldn't watch it. but I don't see it that way in this instance. We've had the deck stacked against us worse and more unfairly before, and that only strengthened my resolve at that point to support my club. I do understand, and have a degree of sympathy with the view of those who draw an equivalence between 'rigging' a game by financial doping, and match fixing. But I don't view these as fundamentally equivalent, and as I say I feel we have been cheated worse before than we have in this instance. I do acknowledge that we all have a line we wouldn't cross - this isn't one for me. But I am frustrated by it, particularly our club's stance, understandable though that may be. We should dispel the myth that this is being done for the benefit of one club - it's not. We should dispel the myth that this is being done for the benefit of Scottish football - it's not (though that may be an unintended consequence). It's being done purely to preserve the status quo for the majority of the SPL, a structure dependent on the competition between the members of the Old Firm. What our club needs to understand is that we stand (amongst other things) as an oasis of resistance to the Old Firm in Glasgow. To be complicit in shoring up this duopoly is misjudging our relationship with our community. As well as missing the obvious opportunity. Yes, reading our last statement, and the latest statements from the SFL and authorities makes me believe we will vote in favour of resolution ii tomorrow...

Are you against a bigger top division?

It's a decent start, but doesn't go far enough. Nothing in here worth trading 'Rangers' in Div 1 that won't still be on the table if 'Rangers' go into Div 3. The art of negotiation. Sometimes it's best to say nothing...

I'm sure (and I've posted on this elsewhere) that the 3 years accounts requirement is discretionary. Also, any organisation can change 'the rules' as long as they do it in a manner which is organisationally and legally competent. That's what's happening here. So this will be within 'the rules'. That's not my difficulty with it. It's that this is happening in a haphazard manner, missing the obvious opportunities, putting risk on top of risk, and being for the benefit of a limited number of clubs. I don't believe they are doing this for the benefit of 'Rangers' or their fans, but to preserve as much of the status quo as possible and that's poor decision making.