It’s what everyone has been talking about of late, and it may well have a strong bearing on the headlines in Scottish football over the course of the season to come. Celtic are back amongst the big boys in the Champions League for the 2017/18 campaign. But opinions are divided on whether the implications of their qualification are positive or negative for the wider game in Scotland. Celtic’s coffers will be positively overflowing when the Champions League money comes in, but there are important financial considerations for the rest of the league too.
Cash coming in
The Hoops will bank €30million for their participation in Champions League Group B alongside Paris Saint Germain, Bayern Munich and Anderlecht. Celtic receive a €12.7million bonus for qualification alone, which will be supplemented by €1.5million for each win they pick up and €500k for every draw. Should they match their best Champions League-era finish by reaching the last 16, which they are 10/1 to do with Betway Sports, they will receive an additional €6million. If Brendan Rodgers’ Invincibles go one better, they will see another €6.5million in revenue.
Fans of other clubs seem to be underestimating the benefits of the fact that every other team in the top flight will receive €401,000 (£365,000) to spend on youth development as a result of Celtic’s qualification – with the added bonus that the money is delivered in one lump sum. With unearthing and nurturing new talent to take Scottish football onto new heights being the expressed aim of the funds, it seems hard to argue that this is not a good thing. With Scottish football enjoying some much-needed financial positivity in light of Begbies Traynor’s April report revealing that only one of the country’s top 42 clubs is in financial distress, this is an extra boost to build on that buoyancy. With every football club in the Premiership benefiting financially as a result of Celtic’s success, there appears to be little room for bitterness.
Scotland in Europe’s premier competition
The likes of Gianluigi Buffon saying before the Group Stage draw that he wanted one final chance to experience the ‘electric’ atmosphere of Parkhead is also surely only a positive for the reputation of the league as a whole. Whatever your allegiances, a team representing Scotland in the continent’s premier competition is something to be supported rather than undermined. And Celtic being able to attract and indeed keep the calibre of player that demands to be playing at this very top level is no bad thing for Scottish football either.
On the pitch, there seems to be equally little reason to grumble. If Celtic are getting the chance to stretch themselves by doing battle with Europe’s elite, the quality of their football can only improve. They will bring their learnings back to the domestic scene and in turn, they will bring the standard up in the league as a whole.
The rivals’ view
Motherwell CEO Alan Burrows was fairly unequivocal in his assessment of the debate.
“Brendan Rodgers was right to say that every Scottish club should be behind them. People go on about how that will just widen the gap between Celtic and the rest but anyone who says that Celtic reaching the Champions League is bad for Scottish football is off their heads.
“It’s important for the prestige of our game that our teams are competing at the highest level and I just wish Aberdeen, Rangers and St Johnstone had done better in the Europa League,” he said.
Aberdeen could be forgiven for being fairly damning on the payments Celtic are to receive as it was they who came closest to knocking the Hoops off their perch in last season’s table, but in fact chairman Stewart Milne was positive about the whole affair.
“We all really want to see Celtic doing well and it would be fantastic if they could get beyond the group stage and hopefully they can if they get a decent group,” he said.
Scottish football has had its fair share of issues in recent times, but the success of one of its teams shouldn’t really be one. Thankfully the game is in the best place that it has been for a while on the pitch, and that’s something that should be celebrated.
This is wee test of a new revenue stream for the blog. We’ve been asked to carry opinion pieces with embedded links and knocked back a few. This one seemed relevant, and will earn SFM a few quid.
Any comments on its use are welcome.
‘Thankfully the game is in the best place that it has been for a while on the pitch, and that’s something that should be celebrated.’
________
And so it should.
All we need now is to get the great wrongs put right and the culpable wrong-doers kicked out of football administration ‘
The great wrongs are, of course,
the myth of continuity Rangers [TRFC must cease to be officially treated as if they were the Rangers of old, and record books should show their foundation date to be 2012]
the official and nonsensical acceptance that the ineligibility of the EBT-paid players did not provide a ‘sporting advantage’ [ relevant titles and honours ‘won’ while SDM’s club was fielding such ineligible players must be stripped]
and the UEFA competition licence awarded deceitfully to an ineligible club [ guilty parties to be possibly prosecuted,and ,certainly, compensation paid to the cheated plc, for the benefit of their shareholders , many of whom may not be ‘supporters’ of the club.
Guest blogs and bloggers are very welcome, as far as I am concerned, provided that they do not subscribe to or defend the untruths and argue for ‘moving on’ as if the lies and deceit can be forgiven while the benefits obtained from such lying and cheating are retained.
One thing I would point out is the number of Scottish players regularly in the Celtic team, and the relatively low amounts of money they cost, certainly in European terms. The following players regularly appear for Celtic. Gordon, Tierney, Armstrong, McGregor, Forrest, Griffiths. If you were to add up what they cost to bring in it would not be a particularly staggering number. Indeed three of them came through the youth system so basically cost whatever it took to develop them.
Yes Celtic have a few players who cost a bit of money, Sinclair (reportedly £3m) and Ntcham (reportedly £4.5m), which in Scottish terms are high figures, however in European terms they are fairly modest sums.
My point, if I have one, is that Celtic are not earning large sums of money then throwing it about in order to try to buy success. They are living within their means, and planning long term rather than looking for short term success. As it stands I imagine Celtic are, or will be by next year, in a net positive financial position. To me that is the way a football club should be operating.
Good guest blog, and good that it’s about something positive in Scottish football.
While Celtic’s dominance of our league gives me no pleasure, I think we all have to acknowledge that they have got to where they are honestly and by hard work, on and off the field, and that it’s not their fault that no club has been able to progress in their slipstream.
In truth, though, for a very long time, there was only ever one club that could compete with Celtic, and they did it dishonestly, and the duopoly that that created was no less a handicap to the rest of us than the current monopoly is. The gap at the time of the death of Rangers between Celtic and the rest was already too great to be closed for a great number of years (if ever) and is unlikely to be closed, by any club, in the foreseeable future (possibly never), and is more likely to come about by some disastrous mismanagement at Celtic than by a stellar improvement at any other club.
Where the rest of Scottish football clubs are at the moment, it matters not one jot how much mney Celtic make in the years ahead, they are not going to be caught, so, while it’s good for Scottish football that Celtic create this ‘unearned’ bonus for the rest of us, there is actually no downside to them stretching their superiority
First off, that’s twice I have been called JUMBO on here recently. Auldheid!!!!! The most polite and intelligent poster on here. Really? However I noticed on my keyboard that U & I are next door to each other so I forgive you fat thumbs!
On the new article, one thing is for sure, Celtic are not showing off whatever wealth they have. Spending wisely and moderately in my opinion. Whatever trickle down effect happens is a bonus. But the main thing is, it keeps Scottish football on the map, relevant.
But you know what? I will always love Scottish football regardless, no interest in EPL. I love when we play other Scottish clubs. Simples.
ALLYJAMBO
SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 12:05
===============================
It is worth bearing in mind that last season was a rarity for Celtic, winning all three domestic trophies. Whilst I think it is fair to say that Celtic are likely to dominate the league for a few more seasons that will be as much to do with strength in depth than it is the starting eleven. On any given day another 11 playing well against a Celtic not at their best can win a one-off game. That has been shown time after time. Other teams may not be looking to win the league, however all it takes is for them or someone else to beat Celtic and the cups are open to anyone winning them.
Better sides than the current Celtic one have been knocked out of cups by what was perceived to be weaker opposition. Looking at it the other way, Celtic have won games in Europe where they were perceived to be the far weaker team.
JOHN CLARK
SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 10:59 Guest blogs and bloggers are very welcome, as far as I am concerned, provided that they do not subscribe to or defend the untruths and argue for ‘moving on’ as if the lies and deceit can be forgiven while the benefits obtained from such lying and cheating are retained.
====================================
Whilst I agree with your position regarding Rangers and the myth of surviving liquidation surely you support the right to freedom of expression. Which is not as absolute as people seem to believe, it does not for instance mean they can “Say whatever I want”.
I personally have no issue with someone putting forward a case for something which I fundamentally disagree with, so long as it is done in a civilised matter.
I would quite like to see a blog supporting the case for continuity and it being the same club.
HomunculusSeptember 1, 2017 at 12:27
I agree with you on this, which doesn’t mean I disagree with JC’s point, as I’ve always looked on someone putting forward an opposing view as an opportunity to challenge it and, as a result, hone our own argument(s).
Even trolls have aided us in this in the past (where are they all now?) and I am sure there are points that we have missed that might add to our list of factual evidence if a blog put forward in a sensible manner, supporting some opposing view, was put up.
It might receive a rather warm (as in red hot) response, but no vindictiveness would be allowed to remain (once spotted by the mods) on here, that’s for sure, and respect for the poster’s sincerity would be the order of the day.
In fact, a blog from the Ibrox side not covering the main topics of this forum would be welcome; so come on Chris Jack, explain to us all just how it is that Hearts have so wronged Scottish football by refusing to accept your club’s derisory offer for one of their best players. His explanation of why it is up to the selling club (that isn’t looking to sell the player) to reduce their asking price, rather than the club seeking to buy the player to up their offer price, would be most illuminating
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 11:39 One thing I would point out is the number of Scottish players regularly in the Celtic team, and the relatively low amounts of money they cost, certainly in European terms. The following players regularly appear for Celtic. Gordon, Tierney, Armstrong, McGregor, Forrest, Griffiths. If you were to add up what they cost to bring in it would not be a particularly staggering number. Indeed three of them came through the youth system so basically cost whatever it took to develop them.
——————————————————————
My only comment would be the low number of Scottish players coming out of the academy. It is all very well being in a financial position to offer better terms to the best talent in the SPFL while being relatively cheap in comparison to England, but in doing so it depletes opposition teams’ squads who in turn resort to bringing in foreign players to fill the void. Examples would be Dundee Utd being relegated following the loss of Armstrong, Mackay-Stevens and Ciftci or would ICT have avoided relegation if they had kept hold of Christie. Of those only Armstrong made the grade.
HomunculusSeptember 1, 2017 at 12:27
‘…..surely you support the right to freedom of expression………….
….I would quite like to see a blog supporting the case for continuity and it being the same club.’
_________
I surely do.
Like you, I would not mind seeing some reasoned support for the view that TRFC are the very same Rangers, but such reasoned support would have to include the conclusion that if TRFC are the same club they have to pay the taxman a helluva lot of money .Otherwise it would just be a plea to let ill-gotten gains remain with the ill-getter!
I could live with seeing the taxman collect!
But the fact that we have not seen in 5 years anything like an attempt to justify the ‘continuity myth’ strongly suggests that no thinking person can find a justification.
I think that it was Jim Spence who said that it didn’t matter if it was a one horse race or a two horse to the League title, if you weren’t on one of those horses.
Jim is correct. For the last thirty years Scottish football has survived, despite having a duopoly, now a monopoly, at the top of the domestic game. Yes there have been instances of other clubs winning the odd cup or two, but for the most part all other clubs have been feeding on scraps from their masters table, with the help of the odd “honest mistake” at times. There has been no sustained opposition.
I honestly don’t know how the league has survived as well as it has when all clubs, bar one, know at the start of the season that they have no prospect of league honours. Just the hope of a cup run or a European place seems to be enough to encourage fans to come back year after year. Recent European performances would suggest that Europa League participation is actually more of a hindrance than a benefit, particularly when the new season starts before the end of June.
It’s sad to reflect on the undoubted fact that Celtic have already won their biggest game of the season by beating Astana, and all done ane and dusted before the end of August. Brendan Rodgers set a high bar last season through an unbeaten domestic campaign and by winning the treble last season, thus keeping interest high. What could be measured as success this season? Retaining the treble? Still being in Europe after Christmas. It will be interesting to see how Celtic fans respond to the run of the mill domestic games.
So is Celtic’s “success” in reaching the CL Group stages a benefit to Scottish football? Well it is certainly a huge benefit to Celtic. It facilitates a level of income that is light years ahead of all other domestic sides and all credit to Celtic for being able to achieve those goals. That said, Celtic can still only compete at the third tier of player trading, e.g. tier 1 – elite players £25m+, tier 2 £10m-£25m, Tier 3 £1m-10m, while all other Scottish clubs are working in the bargain basement of free transfers, nominal fees, Bosmans and loan deals.
Will Celtic’s success improve the domestic competition? No chance, certainly as long as the level of Celtic’s benefit outstrips that of all other clubs put together then the gap will continue to widen. The solidarity payments to other Premiership clubs quoted above is a bit misleading, although club chairman will undoubtedly welcome the extra funds. It is misleading because solidarity payments would have been made whether or not Celtic qualified for the group stages or not. The amount would have been less (perhaps halved) but a payment would still have been made.
Will Celtic’s success improve the brand that is Scottish football? I don’t believe so. Celtic’s own brand is certainly on the up after a period in the doldrums, while the other clubs and the national side are heading in the opposite direction. I see Celtic very much like Ajax of 10/15 years ago as a respected name with a distinguished history, but still very much a big fish in a small pond. Ajax’s fortunes, however, have waned over the last decade, probably more because a few other Dutch clubs have more comparable fan bases capable of allowing clubs to compete for the best domestic talent. Celtic currently don’t have any clubs with the fan bases to challenge them, so it would appear to mean that Celtic will have to challenge themselves year on year.
I don’t see any prospect of significant change benefiting Scottish football over the next few years, unless there is a European wide restructuring of the elite competitions. Personally I’d rather see an elite European league established with franchises, probably held by the big 4 or 5 countries. That would leave a second (and less well funded) tier of football played across most European Leagues but I believe that could bring about a leveling of standards both across Europe and within the domestic game. I don’t believe that it is possible to level standards upwards in the present environment of financial disparity between the haves and have nots, so the only realistic option will be a leveling downwards. Celtic, individually, would probably lose out, but I would see it as beneficial to the wider domestic game.
SHYSTER FLYWHEEL SHYSTER
SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 13:06
My only comment would be the low number of Scottish players coming out of the academy.
============================================
I’m not sure if you mean leaving the academy and moving into Celtic’s first team squad or leaving the academy and going on to a career in football, at whatever level.
I think that there is a reasonably high number of young players who go through Celtic’s development system and go on to play professional or semi-professional football. Though I couldn’t provide figures on that. Some make it to a higher level than others, however that is just to be expected surely.
Obviously from Celtic’s perspective the ideal scenario is that they get a player young, he makes it into the first team squad, he keeps developing and improves the first team. That player gets to a level that other clubs make an offer Celtic simply have to accept and the player moves on. With the money being used, at least in part, to finance running the development system and continuing the cycle. There is one right now who looks like a worked example of that model.
Quite frankly, if there is a “Celtic way” (other than the bit in front of Celtic Park) then that is it.
JOHN CLARK
SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 13:52
HomunculusSeptember 1, 2017 at 12:27‘…..surely you support the right to freedom of expression………….….I would quite like to see a blog supporting the case for continuity and it being the same club.’_________I surely do.Like you, I would not mind seeing some reasoned support for the view that TRFC are the very same Rangers, but such reasoned support would have to include the conclusion that if TRFC are the same club they have to pay the taxman a helluva lot of money .
======================================
I disagree, any logical argument (that I can think of) would come to the exact opposite conclusion.
The potential arguments would be based on the idea that there was a limited company which operated a football club. That it was the limited company which owed the money to a myriad of creditors and that it was the limited company which was being liquidated.
That when Charles Green bought the assets of that limited company, effectively prior to liquidation (let’s not get into how that worked) then he bought the “football club” as part of that asset purchase. So the football club survived in spite of the limited company being liquidated.
Therefore it is the limited company which holds the debt and not the surviving football club.
It’s nonsense of course but as I see it that is the only argument, and it does not come to the conclusion which you believe is inevitable. If you look at the tax returns, or any contracts, or any debt I am quite sure it will all be in the name of the limited company.
Homunculus, if that’s the only potential argument and you’re already describing it as “nonsense of course”, is there really any point in a supporter of such argument coming on and trying to make it? As you and John Clark have made clear, no one coming on this forum will ever convince any of us (including me) that there is merit in that argument, so why would you pull JC up on his suggestion that renunciation of that claim is a pre-requisite to posting? From memory, I think the Lawman (remember him?) made a decent, reasoned attempt at that argument by pointing out some similarities in the Leeds and Rangers situations but could not ultimately convince us. If we believe as a matter of fact that Rangers1872 was liquidated and the evidence proves it, I see no reason for inviting someone to argue against the facts.
Guest Blogger
Begbies Traynor’s April report revealing that only one of the country’s top 42 clubs is in financial distress.
————————————————————————
“Who is this club? I want to know who this club is!”
We must be the only country in the world where success in the top European Club competition by (one of) our senior clubs is frowned upon by so many in the game.
The fact that every other SPFL Club, or holding company in one case, is due to receive a windfall of £365,000 seems to have been forgotten.
NAWLITE
SEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 15:19
==============================
As I said “that I can think of”, someone who actually supports the position must surely be able to come up with something better than that.
“… so why would you pull JC up on his suggestion that renunciation of that claim is a pre-requisite to posting?”, because people are allowed to hold and express an opinion even if I consider it to be wrong.
If something is incorporated and is made known to companies’ house then to argue they are not incorporated in liquidation would have required a document of proof showing an unincorporated entry.
Homunculus,
They “must surely be able to come up with something better than that”. That made me laugh. It’s instructive that even now, 5 years later, they still haven’t hence Doncaster and McKenzie’s recent “it’s a feeling” bollox.
I think you’re just being cruel asking someone to come on and try to make the argument. Like a cat toying with a mouse on here, I’d imagine.
Roll on a court-based JR where the truth will out.
Not Scottish football but could have an effect throughout European football. It is being reported that UEFA are investigating PSG in relation to Financial Fair Play. The investigation is to focus on the club’s compliance with the “break even” requirement.
I have taken this comment re the PSG investigation from a well know football supporters forum. No prizes for guessing which club they follow.
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 18:05
Not Scottish football but could have an effect throughout European football. It is being reported that UEFA are investigating PSG in relation to Financial Fair Play. The investigation is to focus on the club’s compliance with the “break even” requirement.
===========================
I could be wrong so hopefully someone will correct me if so. I believe an investigation can only take place if the member FA notifies UEFA. If that is the case then a certain Scottish club will never have its affairs looked into to IMO.
NAWLITESEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 15:19 4 0 Rate This
Homunculus, if that’s the only potential argument and you’re already describing it as “nonsense of course”, is there really any point in a supporter of such argument coming on and trying to make it?
—————-
Something i posted the other day.
I have never found anyone that has lost an argument or has been convinced otherwise by an ibrox fan or the smsm that it is the same club.At what point do they begin to look at themselves and say I don’t know anyone that believes we are the same club to have convinced someone who says we are not the same club to change their mind.And i don’t know anyone that has won an argument to defend the same club argument.At what point do they look at the facts in front of themselves and say i will never win the argument that we are the same club because the facts are so strong laid out in front of me that i have no argument.
——————–
The exact reason SR or ND will not come out in an official capacity and try and state or argue it is the same club.
The facts are too strong against.
Actually enjoying this Scotland match.
JIMBOSEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 12:08 16 6 Rate This
First off, that’s twice I have been called JUMBO on here recently.
……………….
Mean culpa (for the first one)
I had hoped you hadn’t noticed. That’s what happens when posting at silly o’clock in the morning.
Fat thumbs and bleary eyes.
Tbf, I’m good for at least one typoid in every post.
“…Scottish football has had its fair share of issues in recent times, but the success of one of its teams shouldn’t really be one. Thankfully the game is in the best place that it has been for a while on the pitch, and that’s something that should be celebrated.”
=======================================
Or from another angle…
CFC is way ahead of the domestic competition.
That is down to prudent management off the park, and successful management on the park.
CFC is currently reaping the benefits of their success.
I think most would agree that CFC ‘should’ be well ahead of the domestic competition for several years to come, [although this does not mean a treble each season.]
What would make things even more competitive – and interesting / balanced – would be if TRFC goes bust. Permanently.
This would leave the SMSM with a void to fill.
No more boll*x reporting, [sorry copy & pasting], about their favourite club.
More reasonable, and more in-depth reporting on other clubs – other than CFC – would prevail.
And the fans of many clubs would probably be pleased to see this negative influence removed from the Scottish game.
Will RIFC/TRFC get another, desperately needed soft loan this month, as per Phil’s projections ?
still a great looking game
Brilliant!! (I’m back in the Scotland camp)
Loved that comment about wee Leigh, ” He takes it as a personell insult if he doesent score”
That’s Armstong off. must be breaking his heart. Wee soul. God Love GMS
Oh Chris Martin !!
upthehoopsSeptember 1, 2017 at 18:38
‘……I believe an investigation can only take place if the member FA notifies UEFA. ..’
___________________
Not as I read the the Rules, uth:
‘Chapter 1– Investigatory Chamber
Article 12 –Tasks of the CF chief investigator
1 The CFCB chief investigatorleads the monitoringprocessand the investigationproceedings.2
2 An investigation can be opened “ex officio” or upon request.3 The CFCB chief investigatorestablishesthe facts and collectsall relevantevidence.4 The CFCB chief investigator leads the investigationproceedings himselforassigns this role to another member of the investigatory chamber’
From 2 above, it looks as though the Chief Investigator can act on his own initiative, without needing a complaint or reference from any quarter.
http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/28/72/46/2287246_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Its all over, we have won.
Just going to leave the blog now to JC in his capable hands. And to Aulldeid, whom I love but he calls me Jumbo””””
Interesting blog, but I fear I must voice a contrary opinion.
IMO the question is ill-posed.
It is not a question of Celtic’s success being good or bad for Scottish Football – though I must say there are some very magnanimous and forward thinking comments from our competitors – clearly these are people of integrity who appreciate sporting success when it is achieved fairly and squarely.
No, the question is whether or not the Champions League is good for Scottish Football?
Indeed, I would question whether the Champions League is good for any domestic league?
Let’s face it, the competition has been rigged by an elite group of clubs to ensure that they are presistently rewarded with vast riches that allow them to completely dominate their own domestic scenes.
The ridiculous gerrymandering that allows multiple teams from dominant nations to compete in the so-called ‘Champions’ League is further evidence of how corrupt the competition is and how it has been rigged to establish a financial and sporting gulf between those in the elite group and everyone else.
Sure, there are going to be occasional blips – Leicester City fairy tales (funded to the hilt by sugar daddies) will sometimes happen. But on the whole domestic football across Europe has become far more predictable and, as a result, frankly boring.
Celtic have every right, indeed an absolute duty, to strive for excellence in all aspects of their business.
However, IMO we would be stupid to think that one team accumulating tens of millions while everyone else lives of scraps of <£0.5m is going to do anything particularly positive to encourage domestic competition.
Yes, the overall level of the game might improve, but really what does £0.5m buy in football terms?
I see Celtic dominating Scottish football for as long as they manage their affairs in a sensible manner. As a Celtic fan, well, these are good times at home and it may seem pretty churlish to criticise 🙂
However, I also know that we are most likely to be no-hopers in Europe for the same forseeable future, and that stinks.
I want Scottish football and my own team, Celtic, to be competititve in every competition we enter.
The Champions League is bad for Scottish Football, is bad for domestic football across Europe, and is the most obvious example of how corrupt the sport has become outside of our own wee bubble.
I’ve said it before – as fans, we need to get control of our national association, clear out our own corruption and then start building alliances with the other diddy nations to challenge the financial firepower of the so-called elite clubs – football mafia.
ZilchSeptember 1, 2017 at 21:42
When teams spend more than the prize money available and i mean the total pot to include the commercial spin off from the tournament then the football is not about football anymore it a vehicle to launder money across the globe.
Who in their right mind would pay 122million with no gaurantees and who has that kind of money to throw at a footballer. The game is fecked at the top level and the EPL is now shit to watch. Players you would not have been able to have swapped as stickers in the playground are now being bought for 20 to 50 mill, money laundering.
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 14:53
The potential arguments would be based on the idea that there was a limited company which operated a football club. That it was the limited company which owed the money to a myriad of creditors and that it was the limited company which was being liquidated.
—————–
Would the certificate of incorporation not kill that debate at the first hurdle.
A football club, once incorporated, is indistinguishable in scots law from it’s corporate identity.
If the club was separate it would need it’s own constitution, committee members,trustees,etc. Rangers football club does not have that
Cluster OneSeptember 1, 2017 at 22:42
‘…If the club was separate it would need it’s own constitution, committee members,trustees,etc. Rangers football club does not have that.’
___________
Well, the original Rangers certainly did not have a ‘holding company’ that ‘owned it!
It was the club, the actual football club, that went bust, and in consequence, ceased to be a member of the SPL, and in consequence of that, ceased to be entitled to membership of the SFA.
There can be no more certain fact than that.
Our football ‘Authorities’ quite simply perjure and debase themselves by not acknowledging that fact.
That makes them more evil than the cheating SDM’s club.
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:26
———
If the club was separate it would need it’s own constitution, committee members,trustees,etc. Rangers football club does not have that.
—————-
Well, the original Rangers certainly did not have a ‘holding company’ that ‘owned it!
———-
Sorry i ment to write in the past tense, i was copying from a file.
JOHN CLARK
SEPTEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:26
==================================
It did have a holding company, it was The Rangers FC Group Ltd (Wavetower). It was that company which bought the shares held by David Murray either directly or through companies as I understand it. From memory it bought 85% of the shares in the original Rangers.
Given that 85% allowed it to pass any resolution or special resolution then it had total control of Rangers.
ZILCHSEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 21:42 Interesting blog, but I fear I must voice a contrary opinion…..
…. No, the question is whether or not the Champions League is good for Scottish Football?
…..Indeed, I would question whether the Champions League is good for any domestic league?
Let’s face it, the competition has been rigged by an elite group of clubs to ensure that they are presistently rewarded with vast riches that allow them to completely dominate their own domestic scenes.
… The Champions League is bad for Scottish Football, is bad for domestic football across Europe, and is the most obvious example of how corrupt the sport has become outside of our own wee bubble.
——————————————————————————————-
I couldn’t agree more with all that you said.
Football is about Power.
The Champions League has created and fuelled a group of a less than a dozen giant and increasingly powerful clubs who have one by one forgotten their roots as they strive to compete with each other.
They are one by one becoming codpieces for wealthy aspirants or corporations who want a physical representation of how Big they see themselves as being.
The reality is now that any previous winners and erstwhile European high hitters from smaller TV audience countries like Celtic, Ajax, Feyenoord, Benfica and many more are no longer permanents at the top table and the gap between them and the 4 nations who dominate will just continue to get bigger.
The wee countries and by that I mean all those from countries not called England, Spain, Italy and Germany should organise their own European Competition.
Maybe even show it on council telly too.
As for our blog.
I am pleased Celtic qualified for the Champions League and think 4 rounds of qualifying and “non champions” (apart from last year’s winners) entering is quite ridiculous and politically wrong.
I know the money Celtic make from it will never even get close to elevating them into a superclub like Barca, or Paris SG, or Milan.
It will however keep their business in a different league to all their domestic competitors.
I can also see and recognise that there is a smaller financial benefit to some of our other clubs but the reality is Celtic are looking after themselves in what is already an unfair fight and the payments made to some of our clubs are in reality thin fare for a UEFA wide situation that should never have been allowed to happen.
And should be changed.
That’s the kind of vision we should be getting from our administrators and their counterparts in Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Turkey, Greece, Belgium, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, and everywhere else where there is a national league and a bona fide champion.
and the 5 nations who dominate will just continue to get bigger.
The wee countries and by that I mean all those from countries not called England, Spain, Italy, France* and Germany should organise their own European Competition.
———————————————
*especially with the recent huge and questionable investment in Paris SG
I would agree with the comments posted by Zilch yesterday evening re the CL. I am also looking forward to the day when the elite teams go away and do their own thing. It will be like watching the Harlem Globetrotters play the Harlem Globetrotters in every game and will fail spectacularly. Once my team is eliminated from any competition then my interest in the competition ceases which I suspect is the case for most supporters. If the day ever came when some mighty oligarch took control of my team then my support of the game would go to Neilston and/or Pollok Jnrs. At least then, the game would have infinitely more value than a Capitalist’s plaything.
On the continuing NC/OC debate and ignoring, for the moment, all legal and factual evidence, I would request of the Continuation Mythers:
If Rangers Football Club was a separate entity from the limited company that went bust, show me evidence of it’s existence now! Show me the minutes from the last club meeting. Show me a list of it’s office bearers. Who are it’s members? Or if you can’t find that – though if they don’t exist, how can a club? – show me the demarkation line between club and company! Go on, you know you want to!
Quite simply, if, at incorporation, this immortal club carried on, there would be a list of post incorporation office bearers and members corresponding exactly with the list immediately prior to incorporation. Surely such a list would take pride of place in Rangers’ trophy room, or it’s archives , and be readily displayed to anyone, the media in particular, who might ask to see it!
But then, if such a list existed, unless new members had joined this immortal club, then it’s immortality would end with the death of it’s last member (or would that be it’s second last member as one person hardly constitutes a club?)!
Now this argument shouldn’t be necessary (whether fanciful, or not) in the face of the known legal facts, but clearly, if the Rangers Football Club committee had intended the continuation of a separate entity (whether a legally correct artifice, or not), they would have ensured that this was recorded and minuted beyond reasonable doubt, and that properly constituted meetings were held annually, at the very least. They did not do this, because, in all probability, they were more honourable (publicly, at least) than the Charles Greens and Jim Traynors of this world! They did not do this, because the whole idea of an immortal football club, one that survives the mad spending that brought Rangers to liquidation, was, and still is, ludicrous.
JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 1, 2017 at 21:39
upthehoopsSeptember 1, 2017 at 18:38‘……I believe an investigation can only take place if the member FA notifies UEFA. ..’___________________Not as I read the the Rules, uth:
=======================
Thanks for that John, although I find it difficult to see how UEFA are ever going to become aware that TRFC are propped up by ever increasing soft loans if the SFA just keep granting them a licence.
The continuing NC/OC debate here and Phil Mac’s latest reminded me:-
Frantz Fanon
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalise, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
Wrt the future of elite European football, I can see potential for a Chinese/European super league . Say, 8 top European clubs playing in a league with the top 8 Chinese/Asian clubs , including some from Australia, South Korea, maybe even Eastern Russia, and outwith the control of UEFA , and all for the benefit of large media conglomerates . The big European clubs bugger off because the money (and a massive untapped population) is there, leaving all European leagues to sort themselves out into a more meaningful competition . Discus !!
Jimbi
Mu apologied for mu typong errir.
I blamw mu phinw ketbiarf it matbw my neq spexs. 🙂
Pursuit of CL geld killed Rangers.
Leeds nearly went down the plug hole on the same chase.
Many blogs ago I argued for a greater share of CL income to go to the league and not the club winning it.
Celtic taking in £5m less is not going to weaken chances of qualifying and having £5m more to pour into players pockets is not going increase chances of winning CL either.
It should be a decision taken by all clubs in all countries at UEFA level with a definite policy on how the extra would be spent for the greater good of the game.
We live in the long spoons hell.
http://theunboundedspirit.com/heaven-and-hell-the-parable-of-the-long-spoons/
Discauss? Blimey, how long have you got?
For me the first thing to get the head around is the inevitability of the gap. We have as much, or as little, right to complain about the gap between Celtic and a bog standard EPL team in terms of buying power as we do between that EPL team and the Euro big guns (once called G12 now G16?) or of the gap between Aberdeen and Celtic. Also of course, most teams in Scotland see a gap between them and the Dons: we keep signing their captains on a superior wage deal for instance. My Scottish socialist/republican upbringing taught me that social equality is not about everyone being the same but was about equal opportunity. Fitba is the same: if Aberdeen were good enough, got 50,000 attendances, sold enough ST’s and managed themselves properly for a decade or so we too could make the autumn stages of the CL with it’s unbridled happiness and money trees. The problem now is that the gaps are so huge. 30+ years ago the Old Firm paid more than we did, not quite double but a fair whack. Aberdeen could compete with this by use of winning bonuses, European stuff and the fact that the big two could only have a finite amount of players. The English top league could double a player’s salary but, again, there was a finite limit to the numbers. Going up the money hierarchy the same went for the big Italian and Spanish clubs versus England. All in all there were gaps but anyone could have a go if they were good enough as per Aberdeen 1983. Those days have gone now and in the past they must remain.
Celtic are 6 to 7 times bigger in terms of wages and turnover than Aberdeen. Rangers could have been too, they phucked up: different conversation. Middling second tier English teams could buy any player in Scotland. I know that many on Celtic’s books would choose not to go but that’s about ambition rather than salary levels. The transfer fees involved are pretty much small beer for them also. That may be a bit contentious but even if we stick to EPL versus Scotland it’s a massive gap. The big teams in England can buy any lower half EPL player they want and the G12/16 guys are on 200-300k a WEEK. I may not have the exact numbers but it’s the scale that is relevant. So where do we go?
I think we may just have to live with the differences, that’s life ….but… What we do have to do, and by “we” i mean the Scottish provincial teams that the Dons plunder now and then, Aberdeen, Celtic, the middling EPL teams (Southampton etc), is draw the line at how far we are willing to let the G12/16 cartel hog the loot in the off chance that we get some crumbs off the table. If they want to form an elite (and that means exclusion, it means elite only. i.e. nae us!) then off they should pop. No B teams, colts, affiliated or reserve teams in the national leagues. No participation in national cups. We need to seriously look at whether the players involved are eligible to play in the national leagues at all and if they can play for the national teams. I suggest the latter but not the former, These guys have squads of 80 plus, they are taking the piss frankly , because they have so much loot. They also need competition, genuine crowds, local interest etc or their game is sterile. The national associations need to get a grip on this, there is more to football than the size of the tv deal especially as it doesn’t add to the majority of clubs. As was mentioned above: let them set up their Harlem Gloetrotter’s elite league, bad chess to them.
Tam cowan should just shut up!
How on earth is a Motherwell supporter allowed to comment on ticket prices involving the Celtic and top teams in Europe?
HomunculusSeptember 2, 2017 at 07:58
‘…It did have a holding company, it was The Rangers FC Group Ltd (Wavetower)’
_________
Nothing in the Companies House records to show any returns from Wavetower which include a reference to Rangers Football Club [of 1872/99] as a subsidiary.(In truth, there’s bugger all at all in their accounts from the time they were incorporated in 2010 to date!)
But even granting that Wavetower could conceivably be regarde as a ‘holding club’ of the Rangers bought from SDM, it was NOT Wavetower (co number 07380537) that went into administration and then Liquidation.
No, it was the football club, their supposed subsidiary, bearing the original company number of the club founded by the Glasgow Green boys in 1872 and incorporated with that identity number in 1899.
The suggestion by ‘Liquidation’ deniers that it was the ‘holding club’ that went bust while the football club lived on is,to quote an eminent philosopher of my former acquaintance, philosophically unsound, and absolute shoite.
Wavetower is alive : RFC(IL) awaits the final dissolution as soon as the Liquidators finish their work.
JOHN CLARK
SEPTEMBER 2, 2017 at 22:12
=================================
Wavetower, as was, was Rangers’ holding company. It was Rangers holding company because of the number of shares it held, 85%, it having total control over every decision that Rangers made, and the fact that it did nothing other than hold those shares. Whether they mentioned it in their accounts or returns to Companies House isn’t really the point.
However it was not Wavetower which went into administration and then liquidation.
I really don’t know why you seem to be taking exception to what I said, it’s just making the point that when the deniers talk about a “holding company” it is the easiest thing in the World to say “You are correct, they did have a holding company, it was called Wavetower and it didn’t go into administration or liquidation. That was the club”
Going by the thumbs up count for every 14 who want to live in heaven 10 want to live in hell.
Humans are strange beings.
HomunculusSeptember 2, 2017 at 23:42
‘..I really don’t know why you seem to be taking exception to what I said, .’
________
No, no no.Far from taking exception , I thought I was reinforcing your argument, adding something to it [ the fact that Wavetower is nowhere on record as being the holding company of RFC as was, in the way that RIFC is the holding company of TRFC], not implying that you were one of the deniers!
Maybe my drafting skills need improvement.
HomunculusSeptember 2, 2017 at 07:58‘…It did have a holding company, it was The Rangers FC Group Ltd (Wavetower)’
==============
Does being the majority shareholder in a club with 85% of the shares make you the holding company of that club?
CLUSTER ONE
SEPTEMBER 3, 2017 at 08:05
===================================
Pretty much, yes. However you can also add in that the company had no other purpose than to hold those shares, and that it had total control of it’s board etc.
Practical law has this to say on the subject.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/3-107-6691?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true&bhcp=1
JOHN CLARK
SEPTEMBER 3, 2017 at 00:00
===============================
Thanks for clearing that up, obviously just a break down in communications.
Likewise I believed I was re-inforcing your point, that it was not the holding company which went into administration / liquidation, it was the club itself. The holding company survived.
What is a tad more concerning is that of the 22 people who chose to “vote” on it 19 seem to disagree. That suggests that 5 years later people either weren’t aware of or choose to “disagree” with a basic fact.
JIMBOSEPTEMBER 2, 2017 at 18:04
Tam cowan should just shut up!
How on earth is a Motherwell supporter allowed to comment on ticket prices involving the Celtic and top teams in Europe?
=================
…because it is the Scottish media’s duty to nit pick and be negative about Celtic. Their world was definitely happier when Rangers were top at the expense of the public purse. That was either (a) debt to the state owned Bank of Scotland that would never have to be paid pack (b) a tax avoidance scheme to pay better players than they could afford with has been ruled illegal by the highest court in the UK, or (c) deliberate withholding of staff PAYE and NI contributions to pay wages to players they could not afford.
Yet there some in the Scottish media who think all of the above was okay, or was someone else’s fault. Wow!
JIMBO
SEPTEMBER 2, 2017 at 18:04
Tam cowan should just shut up!
How on earth is a Motherwell supporter allowed to comment on ticket prices involving the Celtic and top teams in Europe?
——————————–
I suggest you avoid Gordon Parks’ rather strange piece in the Sunday Mail, which is nominally about Patrick Roberts.
Anyone heard anything about Warburton and Co’s claim for wrongful dismissal? Been a while since the subject was raised and, as far as I’m aware, there’s been no reports in the MSM that a settlement has been reached or the claims withdrawn. I did speculate at the end of last season that the reported £1.5m director’s loan might have been used to pay off the three amigos, just prior to Warburton gaining meaningful employment elsewhere, but haven’t read anything that might confirm this.
I’m pretty certain that had the claim been without merit, and dropped, then the media would have gleefully reported it, at length, so I am left to conclude that it has either been settled out of court (which means money changed hands in a southerly direction), or it is still ongoing. Either of those two scenarios might account for the silence, while anything else would make the silence rather extraordinary
HomunculusSeptember 3, 2017 at 09:28
Or put another way, and it is the most pertinent way as far as the ongoing debate is concerned, a ‘holding company’ doesn’t – nay cannot – hold a club, or a Club, or a f***ing football team, not even of the flim-flammy ethereal variety! It only holds shares, usually the majority of shares, in another limited company!
Quite simply, whenever a football club, including Rangers Football Club of years gone by, has a ‘holding company’, it must, itself, be a limited company!
So, anyone using this ‘holding company’ idea to somehow show that ‘the club’, or ‘the Club’, was separate from the company, is using a self-defeating argument!
PS I know that we all know this, because none of us are employed by the SMSM or have an interest in sustaining Scottish football’s great untruth! Also because it’s really quite simple to understand
ALLYJAMBO
SEPTEMBER 3, 2017 at 13:03
HomunculusSeptember 3, 2017 at 09:28
Or put another way, and it is the most pertinent way as far as the ongoing debate is concerned, a ‘holding company’ doesn’t – nay cannot – hold a club, or a Club, or a f***ing football team, not even of the flim-flammy ethereal variety! It only holds shares, usually the majority of shares, in another limited company!
==============================
Indeed, the concept of a holding company and a subsidiary company relates to limited companies.
The notion of a football club having a holding company is meaningless. Well in my understanding of the term.
Back to the Companies Act 2006
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1159
Meaning of “subsidiary” etc
(1) A company is a “subsidiary” of another company, its “holding company”, if that other company—
(a) holds a majority of the voting rights in it, or
(b) is a member of it and has the right to appoint or remove a majority of its board of directors, or
(c) is a member of it and controls alone, pursuant to an agreement with other members, a majority of the voting rights in it,
or if it is a subsidiary of a company that is itself a subsidiary of that other company.
(2) A company is a “wholly-owned subsidiary” of another company if it has no members except that other and that other’s wholly-owned subsidiaries or persons acting on behalf of that other or its wholly-owned subsidiaries.
=====================================
If someone can show me how a club can have a “holding company” other than in a fabrication by Charles Green*, as supported by the media in Scotland, I would love to see it.
*The man who previously admitted that if the CVA was rejected then that was it, the club was dead and 140 years of history were gone.
HomunculusSeptember 3, 2017 at 13:24
‘….*The man who previously admitted that if the CVA was rejected then that was it, the club was dead and 140 years of history were gone.’
____________
That was perhaps the only truthful statement CG had made.
And when the CVA was rejected and the winding-up order was issued, that truth was echoed of course by the likes of James Traynor and other non-Watergate ‘journalists’ and editors.
All of whom very quickly tried to row back from that truth, and began to cobble up the kind of nonsense about ‘ethereal’ entities, clubs being ‘the what it’s all about’ of things, distinct from the body that gets necessarily loses its place in a League through suffering Insolvency and iin consequence loses its entitlement to play professional football!
There was more than stupidity in that rowing back:there was knowing intent to work in the cause of untruth and sports cheating, and to aid the Football Authorities in their nefarious, ignoble and wholly unjustified deal with CG in order to save a club from the just consequences of its wholescale cheating.
We can only guess what the levers and mechanisms were that were brought into play and by whom or what, to effect such a media turn around.
But the whole saga has demonstrated that Truth is as far from the minds and hearts of our SMSM sports and business journalists as it is from the Administrators of our game.
I wish they may find that (to refer to Auldheid’s citing of the parable of the spoons)their arms are forever too short to let the food on the spoon reach their mouths.
AllyjamboSeptember 3, 2017 at 13:03Quite simply, whenever a football club, including Rangers Football Club of years gone by, has a ‘holding company’, it must, itself, be a limited company!
Any old iron, would suggest the clue is on the gates!! Click for full title
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 3, 2017 at 09:28
———–
Thankyou for reply and thanks for the information.
BIGBOAB1916
SEPTEMBER 3, 2017 at 18:20
=============================
Precisely and succinctly put.
Rangers was a group of people, who formed a club.
The members of the club later decided to limit their personal liability for debts and changed it into a Limited Company, with themselves as the shareholders.
At a later date that limited company floated, the shares were traded on the market, it became a PLC.
Wavetower bought 85% of the shares in that PLC and was therefore it’s holding company.
So as I said, Rangers had a holding company, it was Wavetower. It was not the holding company which went into liquidation, it was it’s subsidiary, the PLC. The PLC could not be considered a holding company of a football club, that’s just nonsense.
Football clubs, in the late 19th century, were mostly created as what we would now call “unincorporated associations”.
In exactly the same way as many amateur teams are still run today, a committee would be formed by the members. That committee, through its constitution, would be empowered to take many or all of the important decisions on how their football club was to be organised.
As time went by and football became more popular, clubs drew in crowds of supporters – which meant stadia were needed that could accommodate (and charge admittance to) those fans.
However, as an unincorporated association, the full (and unlimited) liability for any football club’s debt rested jointly and severally with its members. Each member being fully responsible equally for those debts.
This meant that if anything went wrong with the club’s business plan, a creditor could seek to have its debt paid by any one or all of the members.
So, in order to limit their members liability when borrowing money (to build the necessary infrastructure), many football clubs chose to incorporate: to become companies.
But it is important to note that not all football clubs chose to become a company. Some football clubs remained, and remain to this day, an unincorporated association of persons.
As such, the Scottish Football Association recognise that its member may have either form.
Celtic plc (a company), for example, is a member club of the SFA.
Brechin City Football Club (an unincorporated association) is also a member club of the SFA.
The Scottish Football League, also recognised that football clubs could take both forms. It explicitly prohibited the transfer of its membership – except in the case of a member “…wishing to change its legal form…from unincorporated association to corporate body…”
By contrast, when the SPL was created in 1998, all of its member football clubs were companies. It did not originally countenance the possibility that a football club in its league could be anything other than a company.
The original SPL articles stated that: “Shares shall only be issued, allotted or transferred to or held by football clubs entitled… to be Scottish Premier League Clubs.”
And importantly: “A Scottish Premier League Club is a football club which is, for the time being a member of the Company…”
So, to be absolutely clear, a Scottish Premier League Club was a member of the SPL through ownership of a share in The Scottish Premier League Ltd. The football clubs, as companies themselves, were all capable of owning shares.
So what changed?
Around 2002 the SPL was in turmoil with 10 clubs submitting their resignation from the league. In 2003 those resignations were withdrawn and by 2006 proposals had been published that could have expanded its membership and created a second SPL tier.
However, there was a problem. Brechin City Football Club was, at the time, a candidate club for SPL 2.
As an unincorporated association, Brechin could not become a member of The Scottish Premier League Ltd as it has no legal personality to own a share in the company. Of course, a club committee member could register the club’s SPL share in his/her name – but then the shareholder rather than the football club, according to the SPL articles, would be considered to be the Scottish Premier League Club.
So the SPL had to amend its articles to allow entry to football clubs that were not companies.
The first thing to consider was that the football club may not be a company. So the definition for a “Scottish Premier League Club” was deleted and replaced with a definition for a “Club”.
This new definition states that a Club is “… the undertaking of a football club…”
Which at first sight is ambiguous or even meaningless. However, the SPL articles state that words and expressions should be given the same meaning as defined in The Companies Act.
And “undertaking”, according to the Companies Act, means either, an unincorporated association or body corporate (company).
So the amended SPL articles simply say that a Scottish Premier League Club (now just “Club”) – the entity bound by these articles – can be either an unincorporated association or a company.
On either meaning the football club is the “Club”.
A “Member” is now defined separately and means, “a person who or which is the holder of a Share.”
The articles went on to say, “A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a Trustee or a person who is the owner and operator of a Club.”
We know that if the football club is a company, it can hold the share, but who is the “owner and operator” if the football club is not a company?
Thankfully, it goes on to tell us: “… in the case of a Member which is not a limited company, to be the owner and operator of a Club, a partner in a partnership which owns and operates a Club or a member of the committee of management or equivalent of an unincorporated association which is the owner and operator of a Club”
So a member of the club committee could hold the SPL share and the unincorporated association (the football club) is deemed to be the owner and operator.
So, on either meaning of “undertaking” the football club is both the “owner & operator” and the SPL “Club”.
It is only the SPL ” Member” that may not be a football club – as the SPL share should be held in the name of a committee member if that football club is an unincorporated association.
Which makes this completely unfathomable:
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history/MzE3NTg2MTAwN2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0
Why, when the document says that it relates to individuals/corporate bodies, have some SPFL shares been registered to unincorporated associations?
I am sure that the SPLs company secretary has simply made a mistake and that when it is pointed out he will correct it.
But then, of course, that may put the Doncaster interpretation of “Club” under unwanted scrutiny and could even undermine the terms of reference provided to LNS.
Yes, I’m sure it is simply a clerical oversight.
HIRSUTEPURSUITSEPTEMBER 4, 2017 at 00:51
———–
Great post
HirsutePursuitSeptember 4, 2017 at 00:51
‘…But then, of course, that may put the Doncaster interpretation of “Club” under unwanted scrutiny .’
_______________
Nice one, HP
HIRSUTEPURSUITSEPTEMBER 4, 2017 at 00:51
Mighty post HP, I was going to ask why there was forty three shares but at the time East Stirlingshire might not have been relegated yet. Excellent read
Interesting subject of the latest blog to say the least.
Whilst there are some benefits to Scottish football with Celtic reaching the Champions League – solidarity payments (but only to top division clubs) and high level exposure for Scottish players etc I think the piece is misguided in its mission to try and paint a rosy picture for all.
Firstly I’d like to be clear that I have no issue with the clubs gaining the prize money from progressing and accruing points or the extra revenue gained from home gates throughout the tournament. That is the reward for qualifying and achieving results and is fully deserved and must be retained by the participating clubs.
However I have a serious issue in how UEFA calculates and distributes the “TV pot” amongst the participating clubs and also with how “solidarity” payments are calculated and distributed as the current model is fatally skewed and flawed.
I think the “tv pot” should be treated as exactly that – a pan European sum which is allocated to and subsequently distributed by all UEFA participating countries in a more equitable basis thereby reducing the overall financial gap between the qualifying and non qualifying clubs to the benefit of more European clubs.
Was reading John James recent publication, good analysis, nevertheless in the comments section I saw this. Who is the naughty person to have upset him. Would appear my view, or, no view. I recall one of my statements been borrowed from here and used on his site.
peter says: September 4, 2017 at 12:29 pm The following posts appeared over the weekend and are worth a wee visit:
JJ: 1. I will not allow links to a site (SFM) whose members are allowed to openly denigrate me.
2. Davies Left Peg, while not the most eloquent kid on the block, does not pull his punches. However classifying Celtic as ‘That Paedo Ring’ is unacceptable on this site. Scoring points in regard to child abuse is the preserve of a retarded mindset that will never have a place on this Speakeasy.
bigboab1916
September 4, 2017 at 18:38
What have you done with everybody?
Must admit, I had no idea when Scotland was playing there last two games – and had zero interest in the outcome.
To be fair that is not solely down to Regan & the current blazers’ incompetence: my indifference has been developing over at least 10+ years.
And if Dads [& Mums] are indifferent, then an obvious outcome is that kids will lose – or not even develop – their connection with the national team.
And as the Malta game was never going to be a sell-out, why couldn’t free tickets simply be made available to kids – e.g. to all those who are registered as juvenile or even amateur players ?
Whilst the SFA has mismanaged the domestic game, it has simultaneously mismanaged the national game in recent years.
What a laugh! Coral the bookies, have made a huge gaffe about last night’s game:
“Bookmaker Coral have branded Scott Brown a “horrible b*****d” in an embarrassing mix-up over the alleged spitting incident with Malta’s Steve Borg.
The Scotland captain claimed he was spat at by Borg during Monday’s World Cup qualifying clash at Hampden, and made the comment about his opponent in a post-match reaction to the incident.
And now, in a tweet that was quickly deleted from its official account, the bookies wrongly attributed the comment to Borg and claimed “everyone in football” would agree with the assessment of the Celtic man.”
Think someone in their PR dept. will get a slap on the wrist for that.
Both players got the initials SB?