A Sanity Clause for Xmas?


Tayred says: January 20, 2015 at 8:59 am 11 0 Rate …

Comment on A Sanity Clause for Xmas? by ernie.

tayred says:
January 20, 2015 at 8:59 am
11 0 Rate This

Hartsons Comb quote from the Record:

KJ: But Scottish football is not in a good financial place right now.

Isn’t it? I thought the levels of debt in Scottish football have plummeted over the past year or so, the mad-hatters tea party aside of course.
Exactly. But what KJ is saying is that Celtic and rangers are “not in a good financial place” because that is scottish football, one must always read as such, very few SMSM stories make sense otherwise.. One could argue that it only applies to rangers but, as cosmic truth alluded to in his post above, it may be that Celtic believe that they’ll be better off with a propped up rangers, I don’t.
As for the rest of us, let’s be clear, rangers are bad for business never mind sporting integrity, period. The sooner Stewarty Milne and his fellow chairmen/owners get to grip with this the better. The record shows.

And as for threats of tv deal withdrawals? Well, if the tv in question looks to the bigotfest as a selling point we have to ask if we want to be associated with that ethos. In practical terms, there are two places to be for having an unbeatable negotiating stance. One is at the top of the market, in demand, multiple bidders as per the EPL. The other is tail end charlie, an add on at best, a “might as well have” with a low (can’t get much lower) price as per SPFL. You could cut the tv deal by 25% and we would still be ok, it is not lucrative enough (at all in fact) for us to keep bending over for. Grow some cojones SPFL: dump the deal and sell it at a lower price (if need be) in a more fan convenient arrangement and build “the product” up to being of value rather than selling it cheap and making it fit that model.

ernie Also Commented

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
Almost (!) a reasonable discussion on debt to equity, discounting debt etc this afternoon. However, none of this is of any use at all unless you live within your means. Otherwise the debt just repeats; if you keep doing what you’ve always done you keep getting the same result. That’s the bit that the new Rangers don’t appear to get.
Furthermore, you really have to do a bit of “living within your means” before any one will even consider any deal along the lines of financial restructuring. The story we have with old/new Rangers is they can’t or won’t contemplate this. It’s about survival you Bears: not war chests, ten in a row and CL music. Waken up.

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
Resin_lab_dog says:
January 16, 2015 at 12:08 pm
On the contrary Resin the lender was delighted. The service charges and several repayments over the period means they made money. There remained a debt that they could keep going with or sell for pure profit a reduced amount straight to the bottom line: that’s discounting. They would have seen this deal as a success. Post financial collapse this has been the strategy of the banks but has always been an option with lenders. I have a affair idea of what they paid for the debt but not official enough for me to table. Sadly for the latest Horace it was more than pennies in the pound. Still good money wasted on previous era borrowing though. There are many, many ways of running a business within the means that are available to you as time moves on that do not mean shafting everyone else around you.
Can any old rangers supporter ever get this? Not likely, it seems they have no idea.

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?
Horace_McGonigal107 says:
January 16, 2015 at 9:39 am
I can’t talk for Dun Utd but in Aberdeen’s case it took a lot longer than 2 or 3 years to sort out the debt burden they had taken on by adopting an ill conceived business plan that failed for them as it did with others i.e. spending more than you earn AND more than could be feasibly recovered.
So about 10 years ago they stopped and cut their cloth to suit. Multiple years of low cost/no cost fitba deals and contracts followed while the much maligned Stewarty Milne worked away to get the debt discounted and raise some more incoming money. George Yule joined the board and these two along with Duncan Fraser got a deal sorted with the bank and with a new investor (contributor really) and the debt was bought out and debt to equity fixed with the new benefactors.
So the issue has not been since, never mind as a result, of Rangers being liquidated: this has been ongoing for some time and they are doing fine. Rangers, on the other hand , failed to see it never mind deal with it and the new Rangers have started off with the same blindness; what a bunch of dopes.

Edit to add: In the meantime you have posted another post. I apologise, I thought you were asking a question but you have a point to make, why not just table it? What is interesting is that the teams you mention include Aberdeen so I can confirm to you that the financial position they are in constitutes survival in business, not success. That’s the primary aim (financially) for all well run clubs in Scotland.

Recent Comments by ernie

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Bogs Dollox.  On the beeb Scotland news Douglas Fraser too explained how the 30% barrier lead to the TOP requirement with no mention of concert party.  They did at least quote the bit about how the trust appears to be able to raise funds when DK wants but it was all pretty subservient.  You could detect the fear in Fraser’s eyes as he hastily churned out that the share value of 27p meaning no one is likely to accept 20p, i.e. a fuss about nothing.  Aye right!  The shares are worth what the market will pay: for any significant trade that was diddly squat before the judgement and worse now the cold shoulder beckons.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
“This person is totally destroying the site.”  That’s the general idea.  It’s concomitant with being a troll.  That’s why trolls troll specific sites that question their agenda, usually the big lie; whether it’s politics or fitba.  Editing would only put SFM on a par with the MSM.
My only response has been ignore him/her/them (it?).  I would request that those fine gentlemen on here who feel obliged to counter the troll should desist.  You are great at arguing but a troll needs only a response to keep trolling.  p.s. did I mention it’s a troll?

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Graham’s uttering is typical of (concomitant with?) paid bum kissers that hang around spivs. See Tony Curtis in Sweet Smell of Success. He is trying to re start a non story on the basis that his spivs tapped up McInnes. What a tit!

Who Is Conning Whom?
JOHN CLARKDECEMBER 8, 2017 at 11:50
Aye a fair quantum of concomitance with that quintessential SFMship is required to give the Saintees biggest fan anything else rather than the cold shoulder on a decent night out.  The misguided view that TRFC have an elevated status is founded on a sense of entitlement so the sucking up to L5 feeds and speculation is not unexpected amongst fans with laptops and EBT’ers such as Boyd, Rae, Ferguson et al.  The illuminating thing here is just how far the supposed journos have gone down the same road, with the notable exception of Chick in this case.  I suspect he may well have had an inside track which is more than we can say about any of the others.  Who knows, maybe he asked TRFC, an off the wall idea for the SMSM there?

Who Is Conning Whom?
That statement clears the air.  The SMSM clearly didn’t appreciate how much TRFC didn’t want McInnes anyway, that’s ’em telt.

About the author