Podcast Episode 1

Avatar By

Two points on the Satellite guys unsurprising comments. 1/ It …

Comment on Podcast Episode 1 by Smugas.

Two points on the Satellite guys unsurprising comments.

1/ It is now widely considered to be accepted on here that the Old Firm strategy benefitted only the Old Firm and even that is only to say benefit them relative to the other Scottish clubs as the Tv deals in Norway and the like prove.

2/ Scottish football is absolutely ingrained with this notion of the old firm. Whether that is correct or not, the old firm combo was simply not going to be on the menu short term once the level of cheating, and subsequent, continuing cover-up became known. The Sat guy can sit back and say not our problem, “phone me when it’s fixed” (see what I did there) the SFA should never have been given that luxury. Three monkeys was not the response required and all teams, including Sevco have suffered for it.

Smugas Also Commented

Podcast Episode 1
😆


Podcast Episode 1
Sorry, just on the ST thing.

Possibly my fault for the loose terminology. Yes a finance company can buy the ST (so pays up front to the club) and then collects ticket value plus interest from the supporter, or pays discount to the club for the ticket as well thus scoring on both sides. I believe firms like Ticketus may follow this course of action. Good luck with one!

There is a half way house though whereby the club can collect face value ST dues via standing order so without the need for a middle man, or cash up front. A lot of golf clubs used to do this although increasingly the middle man option is now used there too to match their subs to their times of highest expenditure over the summer.

Just to throw a curve ball by the way. Has anyone considered that Eco might actually be pjz with massive split personality issues? 😈


Podcast Episode 1
Alternative Evening Times Artricle

So as the UTT kicks off it would appear that CW claims to own half of Ibrox and Murray Park with CG/IA claiming the other half. Laxey/Easdales now ‘own’ the other two assets and the blatant phoenix operation is left with a tiny amount of cash and precious little else, all of which will go out on a salary run on Thursday prior to the UTT finishing on Friday.

In other news the mayor of Pompeii has asked for calm following the purchase of a large sink plug.


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

Avatar