Enough is enough

By

ANDRAKNOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 15:27 Allyjambo, I might agree with your point …

Comment on Enough is enough by Allyjambo.

ANDRAKNOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 15:27
Allyjambo, I might agree with your point that gate sharing won’t resolve the problem and maybe isn’t even a critical change in the grand scheme of things. If it is right, I think it is because there may be other more innovative ways of redistributing the wealth in the game. I really like what Corrupt Official said earlier about a membership tax, based on (effectively) ability to pay – hope I’m not misquoting you, CO.
But your argument didn’t offer an alternative. You simply said that we would: a. end up with the same teams dominating anyway, b. the clubs that had invested in bigger facitilities would suffer most, and c. that our top teams would be weaker and therefore do even less well in Europe.
It seems, you see a direct correlation between a club’s income and the quality of play on the pitch. Cut the income and you cut the quality. The in-built income inequality means that the top 5 will always be the top 5, just with less good play, which translates into rubbish results in Europe.
When you look at the stats, it is hard to disagree that more money means better results. That is pretty much proven beyond doubt although not always in the short-term. But, the quality of play on the park (and therefore, success in Europe) is, I think, more determined by the level of competition in the league over time.
If the income gap between Celtic & Rangers, and Hearts Hibs and Aberdeen was reduced, you would imagine that the big two would have to try harder and play better to stay ahead, as would the next three to stay ahead of the Dundee clubs for instance. I don’t doubt that they would in the medium to long-term achieve that, but if the incomes were more comparable there would be more occasions when they would fail to.
The 1950, 60s and 80s is a good example. Several different teams won the league although the records show that the top five then were the top five 80 years ago and are still the top five now. That has to do with demographics more than anything else and clubs shouldn’t get too proud of themselves just because they happen to be from a city the size of Glasgow, Edinburgh, or Aberdeen as opposed to a town the size of Perth, Inverness of Greenock.
____________

Hi Andrak, welcome to SFM, and an excellent first contribution, you’ve fairly got a discussion started with your blog. I’m afraid, though, that I was making no offer of an alternative solution in my post, merely pointing out the, in my opinion, failings of a solution based on gate-sharing. I wasn’t putting forward an argument for a direct corelation between a club’s income and it’s quality of players, though that is possibly intrinsic in the pro gate-sharing argument. In my opinion, though, if the solution lies in a fairer distribution of income, then gate-sharing is not only not the answer, it would cripple those clubs most likely to mount a challenge to Celtic, which would leave Celtic even further ahead, but with less clout in Europe.

The solution, as I see it, lies in two possible scenarios, or, as I would call them, miracles.

One would be for UEFA to see sense and take the massive income created by the CL and spread it evenly amongst the participating FAs, leaving the participants to enjoy the benefits of large crowds in Europe’s premier competition, with a still hefty level of prize money. As I said, though, that would take a level of integrity at UEFA of miraculous proportions.

The other miracle would be for a new, inovative manager/coach (an Ian Cathro that works out) to join a club at a time when everything else falls into place, lots of great youngsters breaking through, a few seasoned players to guide them, an income at the club that prevents the need to sell during the miracle period, and for Celtic to hit a bad patch. Even more planets than I’ve mentioned would have to align for this to succeed, but it would be a smaller miracle than the UEFA scenario, even though that one is one that only requires honourable people to sit around a table and look for a solution to what ails football.

Allyjambo Also Commented

Enough is enough
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 19, 2017 at 20:00
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 19, 2017 at 08:52 40 0 Rate ThisA very interesting first phone call to Radio Clyde last night where a Rangers fan named James made a very impassioned observation of the current Ibrox board. Why were the fans groups prepared to do anything to oust the previous board, but are willing to put up with this one not keeping any of its promises? —————–JIMBONOVEMBER 19, 2017 at 10:58 26 0 Rate ThisYes it’s a strange one Up The Hoops.  Why all this misplaced trust by the bears in their boards of directors.—————-Rangers boss Ally McCoist set to be handed £30m once transfer embargo is liftedRangers chief Charles Green will hand Ally McCoist up to £30m for new signings when their transfer embargo is lifted.20/12/12 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11781/8342844/Rangers-boss-Ally-McCoist-set-to-be-handed-30m-once-transfer-embargo-is-lifted———They soon seen through charles Green’s bluster,and it was all get rid of the board(but some still believe he bought a football club 140 years old).Then came.£50m! That’s how much King says it will take to rebuild Rangers — and he’ll put up lion’s sharehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html.———–So very strange indeed
_______________

Two things, I believe, are paramount in this phenomenon of unquestioning belief in Dave King and his board. A board led by a convicted criminal and serial liar.

The first is he is seen as a Real Rangers Man (whatever that might actually mean), as are the rest of his board, and so, apparently, to be trusted to never do anything that might harm ‘the club’.

The second, and this might be where Ernest comes in, along with all the other promoters of the big lie. Almost to a bear, they believe their club cannot die and they can see no reason, therefor, to ‘live within their means’. A football club that cannot die has nothing to fear from an overspending board, indeed, a board that doesn’t overspend has no right to govern such an immortal club and must be expelled from the Blue Room before too much repair work has been done.

In the normal course of life, one might expect people to live by the maxim, ‘once bitten, twice shy’, and not risk losing a second loved entity having watched the first die in very similar circumstances to what we are witnessing now. But give people who already had a superiority complex the veneer of immortality, and all they can see is the need for glory, at all cost, for, in their manipulated minds, their club is a phoenix that will rise again, no matter how often it goes down in flames. To them, insolvency has been normalized (see EB’s posts), and holds no fears. That is what Charles Green, the SFA and SPL, along with the compliant SMSM, have done – removed the fear factor of insolvency, administration and liquidation from Ibrox. It is the loss of the self preservation fear factor, that stopped early man from stepping off a cliff to see what would happen, that has been removed from the psyche of the bears. 

Put another way, an unkind way, perhaps, but zombies (the undead) don’t fear death, and will walk headlong towards obliteration to reach their goal!

Perhaps, currently, a PR guru has decided that there is a need to remind people that a ‘Club’ cannot die, and so has re-ignited the ‘same club’ argument!


Enough is enough
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 21:15
Just a footnote to the transfer of membership. If it was the transfer of membership that made Sevco Scotland “Rangers Football Club”, rather than RFC (2012), then that surely implies that the DNA of RFC, or any other club for that matter, is held within the membership of the SFA.
As far as I’m aware “membership” is just an entry on the register of members of an association, nothing more, nothing less. Membership of an association clearly confers rights and obligations on the entity that holds the membership, such as the right to play in SFA sanctioned football matches.  However, transfer of a membership doesn’t make the transferor the same entity as the transferee.  
Simply put, the transfer of membership from an entity that formerly had a right to play football to a different entity that didn’t previously have a right to play football under SFA auspices, doesn’t alter the fact that there were two different entities.
_________

Or put another way, if the two entities were the same, there would be absolutey no reason to transfer any membership, regardless of the legitimacy of such a transfer.

Or another way to look at it – Hearts went into administration, got a CVA, came out of administration. Was there any need to transfer Hearts membership? And as we both know, and the whole football world knows, there wasn’t, because Hearts live on. Rangers linger on, dying slowly, TRFC were lucky to have RFC’s membership transfered to them. The legitimacy of that transfer is as nothing when judged against the fact Rangers died.


Enough is enough
On the awaited Lord Bannatyne TOP decision.

How ironic, in a most ludicrous way, would it be if a man, who only escaped forty odd jail sentences because he had the wherewithal to pay tens of millions of pounds in fines and unpaid taxes, should then escape the full might of the law because he doesn’t (allegedly) have circa eleven million pounds at his disposal?

I do have a sneaking suspicion, though, that we are about to witness another Rangers Tax Case type saga, that ends up with the only decision that made sense all along, but kills off, in an irreversible way, one more avenue – and all it’s loopholes – for King style shysters to make a killing at the expense of unwitting investors.


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

Les Says It is Time to Ask The Audience?
StevieBC 8th May 2020 at 12:54

I think your point was addressed in page 2 of the SPFL letter, Stevie, (sorry, can't copy and paste it) in the paragraph that begins, 'Several of us have also been asked…' where it ends by saying that they can't comment until after the EGM, which I think would naturally be the case.

Can I say that the SPFL board do not seem to have missed TRFC, and in particular Stewart Robertson, and hit the wall. It is also clear from the paragraph I refer to that some of the clubs, at least, share our view that TRFC's actions are/were 'bringing the game into disrepute'. There appears to be genuine anger within the ranks of the SPFL, though it looks like Robertson has been set up to be the sacrificial lamb (or lump under the carpet) and may be used to deflect the full repercussions from the club he was acting on behalf of. 


Les Says It is Time to Ask The Audience?
incredibleadamspark 8th May 2020 at 11:49 Allyjambo, all that’s a possible for sure but I just feel that for some fans it doesn’t matter if you wear the green and grey hoops or an orange away top you will fit your views around certain events in Scottish football to suit predetermined opinions/conspiracies. Scottish football is facing an uncertain future, as is our society, and the way Rangers have went about things has been an absolute embarrassment. I just can not see what they are hoping to achieve. Stay safe.

___________________

I agree that many/most supporters of all clubs (even ones who conflate grey with white) form their opinions around whatever suits their argument, it is more or less the same in every aspect of life, but as you say, TRFC's vindictive attempt at achieving goodness knows what is an absolute embarrassment, especially to thinking bears; and Celtic, whether through integrity or just having smarter people at the top, are extremely unlikely to ever make such a pig's ear of trying to 'encourage' others to facilitate their required outcome.

Hope you stay safe, too.


Les Says It is Time to Ask The Audience?
incredibleadamspark 8th May 2020 at 10:38

While Celtic may well have done their level best to ensure TRFC were not handed the league title I very much doubt they'd have come up with the amateurish 'dossier' type 'evidence' that TRFC have produced. For one thing, they wouldn't have had to try too hard to come up with some sort of leverage, such as Resolution12, or even threaten, privately, to raise the good old secret 5 Way Agreement. 

I'm pretty certain that Celtic could, if they so wished, end the Great Lie and finish off, not only TRFC, but also all those who aided and abetted them while involved in the game's governance in 2012 and for some time before and after. They could also just threaten to raise Financial Fair Play with UEFA showing how TRFC signed players they couldn't afford (even after they'd posted such disastrous, touch and go UEFA compliant, Accounts) that enabled them to go so far in the UEFA Cup.

It certainly appears that Celtic have little to fear from TRFC's vindictiveness in terms of honesty and rule breaking, while the opposite is true the other way round, which is why they, TRFC, have had to go after their erstwhile friends at Hampden.


Les Says It is Time to Ask The Audience?
Is there any posters on here that think TRFC's long awaited 'Dossier' was worth the wait, or does everyone agree that every doubt expressed as to the likelihood of it containing any 'smoking gun' evidence was right on the money?

I've not read it, and never will, but every critique I've read so far makes it clear that no one has found anything in it that should worry the two named SPFL board members, or anyone else involved (other than Stewart Robertson, TRFC's own man) and that it's nothing more than, at best, a list of questions to be answered, if anyone has the time.

Most notably, the distinct lack of any suggestion of 'bullying', far and away the most serious of the 'leaked' allegations, appears to be missing.

I have to say, though, that in my distrust of the game's governors I am a tad disappointed in it's patheticness*, as a can of worms once opened is very difficult to close, allowing more worms out that may at first have been sought. Anyone else feel the same way?

*Not an actual word, maybe, but then TRFC are not actually the club they claim to be either, so it's alright, see!


Les Says It is Time to Ask The Audience?
Tweet from Graham Spiers

"Key part of Rangers’ accusatory statement of April 11: “bullying”. That is a very serious allegation about #SPFL governance. I’m wading through this RFC “dossier” trying to find evidence of “bullying” but haven’t found it yet. But give it time."

I'm sure page 200 will provide the smoking gun and it will take some time for all who have the dossier to reach mail


About the author