Good Try Mr. McKenzie


BluFebruary 6, 2017 at 11:26 AJ @ 11.26 Even if the writer …

Comment on Good Try Mr. McKenzie by Smugas.

bluFebruary 6, 2017 at 11:26
AJ @ 11.26

Even if the writer wanted to revisit it, not from the perspective of the rights and (several) wrongs of the case but instead ask the question “What are the consequences of this new ethereal landscape?”  There are three fairly obvious starting points. 

Firstly the view of the financier whereby one might explore how an investor would now view a football investment as opposed to previously when he thought he was nicely involved in immovable bricks and mortar (Mackenzie’s club) not imaginary franchise thingies (Mackenzie’s Club). 

Secondly, you would question how opposition clubs (or is that Clubs 07) would view the situation.  The downside risk of excessive leveraging appears to have been removed.  Forget Chick Young spouting forth about returns from Abysses, extinction and killing stuff.  Now we have a cloudy thing that, apart from staying onside with their other Club chums to get the entry level vote they’d require*, they can now view a minimum of three years in the lower divisions as the maximum downside risk.  If you took someone like Gretna of Livingston who started from that point that wouldn’t seem like the worst gamble in the world.

Thirdly, you would have to consider the fans.  Big isn’t always beautiful but apparently it does now buy immortality.  I can tell you from experience it was hard enough before to sell the diddy game to kids of 6 or 7, kids who incidentally mockingly laughed in my face as I explained in simple terms Bryson’s money doesn’t buy sporting advantage theory. 

The Author won’t win the right or wrong argument but he could relatively easily write a piece on the implications of it, if he wanted to. 

Smugas Also Commented

Good Try Mr. McKenzie

Precisely, but since the perception (and I have to say its not the reality amongst the bears in my immediate circles) is that a certain support don’t like being reminded that they’re in a battle for second ergo lets not mention the battle for second emphasising instead the continuing “sh!teness” of the battle for 1st.  All well and good, but certain clubs, particularly our own, need every help they can get in advertising said battle for 2nd-4th to try to get bums on seats.

I will say in all fairness that I am a recent convert to BTsport and, the pantomime horse of Butcher and Sutton aside (decide yourself which one is the bigger erse) their coverage of Scottish Football is so superior to the bland southerly offering of their competitors.  

Good Try Mr. McKenzie

3 simple initial steps. 

1/  Oust the conclave responsible for getting us here.  It cuts out the rot and displays a determination by the clubs to remove it.

2/  Shift all the marketing effort now to the race for 2nd and the relegation/promotion battle.  The race for 1st is both done and boring.  The race for 2nd-5th isn’t.  What about next week on Sportscene we start with (without checking the actual fixtures) the Hibs game and the Caley game with extended breakdown and critical analysis of both.  End the programme with a cursory 3 minute segment on “and by the way Celtic beat (whomever) again.”  I say cursory only to highlight a manner that will be all too familiar to supporters of several of the other clubs.  Its not a dig, at least not at Celtic.   

3/  The flip side of 2 needs to be a greater effort by the clubs to recognise this wider picture.  This singular focus on “race for the title” is worn and broken in current circumstances and currently doesn’t apply to 11 of the 12 participants anyway.  That’s not the 12th participant’s fault and its not up to the 12th participant to do anything about it.  I’ll leave the relegation battle for their own supporters (and its joyous for an Aberdeen fan of recent decades to be able to say that!) but of the “race for 2nd” Tynecastle and Ibrox are basically full because of recent histories (and I’d argue Easter Road also) with their current league positioning almost being a secondary complement to that.  I still see very very little effort at Pittodrie (outwith the playing/management efforts) to alter their circumstances.  The attitude still seems to be “we might come second we might not so shrug your shoulders and come along if you’ve nothing better on.”  Make no mistake coming 2nd this year should define Aberdeen for the next few years and with a new stadium and training complex proposed (and still no more than proposed) it’ll be a pretty momentous period.  In some ways I commend them for going about their business quietly, efficiently and cheaply.  But as ‘Biscuits’ pointed out on Saturday on the radio they’re currently punching above their weight in budget terms and still appear somehow uncomfortable in doing so. 

Theres nothing radical and redistributive in any of those. 

Good Try Mr. McKenzie
My thoughts exactly Joburg.  

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author