Our First podcast features a general discussion involving our own Big Pink and Auldheid.
Since it is the first podcast there is no particular agenda save for a general chat about TSFM, the state of Scottish Football, and some few reminiscences. The chat covers a lot of ground, but establishes the ethos of the blog pretty well.
Topics discussed include FPP, Leadership, Interdependence, Scotland’s self-regard, Coaching and Nurturing of Talent, Redistribution of Income, Rangers, Forgiveness, domestic strife 🙂
The interview was conducted a couple of days before the latest round of Armageddon, when Big Pink and Auldheid felt safe and well 🙂
The link below is to the iTunes store page for our Podcasts. If you go there, you can subscribe to the podcast (on your PC or iPhone) and new episodes will automatically be sent to you.
Since we have just been approved for a spot on iTunes, the iTunes search side of things may not work properly for a day or so.
See you there 😉
Well done Brenda.
Its the wee things you see in court makes all the difference.
“Ex BBC Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles masquerading as a 2nd-hand car dealer in £1m tax dodging scam” tweeted by Ian Fraser.
Guess who the Judge was?
A certain Judge Colin Bishopp who just happens to be presiding over the HMRC/RFC UTT tax appeal next week.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/21/chris-moyles-used-car-dealer-tax-avoidance
GeronimosCadillac says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:02 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
neepheid says:
February 21, 2014 at 7:12 pm
Danish Pastry says:
February 21, 2014 at 6:59 pm
Any thoughts on the deed of release?
======================
My thoughts are that there must have been some charge over the RFC assets, which only Whyte could release. It seems that Green needed the release to be signed, otherwise matters couldn’t progress. All I can come up with is Whyte’s floating charge, but I had understood from comments on here that his floating charge couldn’t survive the transfer of the assets anyway? I’m not qualified to express an opinion on that, so expert opinion welcome.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not an expert but Deeds of Release, Deeds of Novation are only used to make legal agreements between parties legal as no consideration needs to pass.
Why are these businessmen supposedly operating at “arms length” passing the benefit of contracts/agreements with commercial value between themselves for nothing?
=====================================================================
Well they wouldn’t would they. Craigy was illegally novated by Charles it seems hence the stushie and all the tentative tip toing around the issue. Result no cash for Rangurs part 2.
paulonotini says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:12 pm
“Ex BBC Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles masquerading as a 2nd-hand car dealer in £1m tax dodging scam” tweeted by Ian Fraser.
Guess who the Judge was?
A certain Judge Colin Bishopp who just happens to be presiding over the HMRC/RFC UTT tax appeal next week.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/21/chris-moyles-used-car-dealer-tax-avoidance
=========================================================================
And so joins the film scam soon to be joined by you know who, and many many English clubs. This is going to be bonanza time for HMRC.
Castofthousands says:
February 21, 2014 at 8:18 pm
Excellent post.
I think there is a risk to Celtic. As I’ve posted before, how many seasons will the “shooting fish in a barrel” excitement of the current SPFL set up sustain the required level of interest for the Celtic support? There was a considerable debate on RTC before about whether a brave new era for Scottish Football should involve a more equitable share of income. Exactly what this would involve is difficult. Celtic have the biggest fanbase and that entitles them to the biggest slice of the income, undoubtedly.
The devil is in the detail of figuring out a redistribution which would deliver genuine competition while still being weighted in a fair way to reflect the degree of support for each club. I referred a long time ago to the example of Pete Rozelle (see link) the man who transformed the fortunes of the NFL in America by introducing an agreement for TV income to be shared equally. I’m not suggesting an equal distribution of income, nor that the market for Scottish football is comparable to that for American Football across the Atlantic, but simply would point out that the huge growth in income for their League was based on a realisation that competition actually led to many, many more customers.
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/roz0bio-1
That to me seems a statement of the bloomin’ obvious. Barcabhoy referred earlier to the excellent article about Rangers in 2012 by John L Pritchett. His analysis was that Rangers needed to be able to change and adapt. It may be less obvious but could it be that Celtic are in a similar postion? Celtic are the current dominant team in Scottish football. As such they have the ability to lead and influence. What is Celtic’s vision for a heathy future for Scottish League football? Could they ever adopt a Pete Rozelle approach that saw an increased element of competition as a way to significantly expand the total audience? If not, what do they wish for in the next few years? A return to the good old days?
Taysider says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:31 pm
Excellent post. It’s all about sharing. And Stevie Hamill not facing Brian Laudrup just because one club cheated and the other one brought through the youth.
GeronimosCadillac says:
February 21, 2014 at 10:53 pm
I have enjoyed your historical commentary of the East End and the various uses of the land that has taken place there but as I said way back. To take on the FTH was like bayoneting a straw man.
The ravings of that clearly anti Celtic site were risible and not worth responding to IMHO. If Celtic felt there was any damage being done I suspect they would have taken the relevant legal action. However, you did and wiped the floor with them which although it wasn’t really necessary you ploughed on for a 9-0 win.
==========================================================================
I tend to agree with you and for some time after my original demolition of the claims I have ignored the increasingly frenetic and bizarre outpourings of the Bear Land ‘Experts’. However the statement this morning by Fth, endorsed by pzj, that the claim there had been a history of coal mining at Westthorn was a lie could not be ignored as it was my research that made that connection.
Call me pompous or anything similar and it will amuse me – but call me a liar and it’s clear the decks time ❗
There have been many legally actionable statements made by Bear posters and I trust that Celtic’s lawyers are taking note although I wouldn’t expect any action until after the disposal of the EC State Aid case. Obviously someone reacted to the offensive comments made against PL on the pzj twitter account which caused it to be suspended for a spell and his vile posts removed.
As to 9-0 nothing less than 10 in a row will satisfy me – I thought you might have guessed that 😆
@Big Feb 21 7:20pm
Gav says.
“I believe the “deed of release” does relate to the floating charge.”
Hi bud,
I don’t profess to fully have my head around the floating charge, and its a safe bet most folk understand its nuances better than me.
Is the floating charge charge situation the same in Scotland as in England. I have done some googling, but cannot find the info.
What I mean is, would there be any need to have differing documents for each country, and are they looked upon in law, as having different functions, or qualities in a cross border situ.
ianagain says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:17 pm
February 21, 2014 at 11:12 pm
“Ex BBC Radio 1 DJ Chris Moyles masquerading as a 2nd-hand car dealer in £1m tax dodging scam” tweeted by Ian Fraser.
Guess who the Judge was?
A certain Judge Colin Bishopp who just happens to be presiding over the HMRC/RFC UTT tax appeal next week.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/feb/21/chris-moyles-used-car-dealer-tax-avoidance
=========================================================================
And so joins the film scam soon to be joined by you know who, and many many English clubs. This is going to be bonanza time for HMRC.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I could name many former Celtic and Rangers players and current managers of SPL teams who ripped the arse out of the tax man on film stuff. I could also name another big club in the East who challenged the related party loan relationship rules.
They were all at it. The Accountancy firms and so called tax advisors led the charge with the hard sell. clubs in stress looking for an advantage bought in. AS for Agents – well there is a possible in for the tax man. They will crumble before the institution.
Corrupt official says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:25 am
“Is the floating charge charge situation the same in Scotland as in England.”
—————————–
The following comment from campbellsmoney talks about debentures but he mentions floating charges as well. The inference is that English Law may have a more liberal usage of these instruments than in Scotland.
==============
Campbellsmoney says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:15 pm
” Debenture” can mean many things.
In this case I would imagine that it means the floating charge. “Debenture” is used by English lawyers to denote a security document granted by a company containing securities over all of its assets. In England you can create all sorts of charges that you cannot do in Scotland. These charges (which will include a floating charge) are contained in one “debenture” in England. So when the English talk about a “debenture” in respect of a Scottish company they are invariably forgetting that Scottish companies can’t grant debentures in the way that English companies can.
Castofthousands says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:51 am
Corrupt official says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:25 am
“Is the floating charge charge situation the same in Scotland as in England.”
—————————–
The following comment from campbellsmoney talks about debentures but he mentions floating charges as well. The inference is that English Law may have a more liberal usage of these instruments than in Scotland.
==============
Campbellsmoney says:
February 19, 2014 at 3:15 pm
” Debenture” can mean many things.
In this case I would imagine that it means the floating charge. “Debenture” is used by English lawyers to denote a security document granted by a company containing securities over all of its assets. In England you can create all sorts of charges that you cannot do in Scotland. These charges (which will include a floating charge) are contained in one “debenture” in England. So when the English talk about a “debenture” in respect of a Scottish company they are invariably forgetting that Scottish companies can’t grant debentures in the way that English companies can.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When “experts” start to use phrases like ” In this case I would imagine” I start to worry. I imagine that’s not a popular view.
GeronimosCadillac- what specifically do you worry about?
I’ve been skyping Oz for about an hour and a half , chatted to Mrs C for a decent interval, and have now come back on for a wee quick look.
And I am delighted to read the posts about Monday’s UTTT hearings. ( and a wee bit disappointed that STV’s rep is not going to be the nice wee girl from STV that I met in the court of session last time, no offence to your man Raman!).
Any TSFM attenders, look for the debonair ,handsome , strikingly virile, sardonically and quizzically smiling -with a hint of world-weariness behind his smile- little koala.
That’ll be me. 😀
And if you have one o they phones with internet – superb!
GeronimosCadillac – if it helps – I am happy to rephrase what I said before. How about ” I would be astonished if, when using the term “debenture”, the speaker meant anything other than ” floating charge”. In fact there is no other meaning that makes sense in the context.
Happy?
Although I wasn’t there at the time of the relevant conversation I have heard the word “debenture” used in conversation a lot more than most people. I know what it means when it is used in context.
john clarke says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:38 am
0 0 Rate This
I’ve been skyping Oz for about an hour and a half , chatted to Mrs C for a decent interval, and have now come back on for a wee quick look.
And I am delighted to read the posts about Monday’s UTTT hearings. ( and a wee bit disappointed that STV’s rep is not going to be the nice wee girl from STV that I met in the court of session last time, no offence to your man Raman!).
Any TSFM attenders, look for the debonair ,handsome , strikingly virile, sardonically and quizzically smiling -with a hint of world-weariness behind his smile- little koala.
That’ll be me.
And if you have one o they phones with internet – superb!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A bit short notice for me (come on guys, us Lord’s lead busy lives!) but, if I can organise some free time, what time is kick off?
Lord Wobbly says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:56 am
‘..what time is kick off?..’
——–
Good my lord, I believe 9.30 am is the appointed hour of what your Lordship, in beautiful parody of the peasant class , describes as ‘the kick off’, kicks off.
It looks like the perfect storm is approaching Ibrox. No money left perhaps for next weeks wages. The tax tribunal now fully informed by Dr Heidi Poon, Craig Whyte still in the picture and thus dubiety about the ownership of the stadium thus no money can be loaned against it. The pretend Easdale ” here have 1,500,000 pounds” not eventuating. IPO money all gone, season ticket money all gone. Issues such as will it be 10 points or 25 points deducted depending on 1st or 2nd admin pale into nought. Cash is king and apparently it’s all gone. The game is up when the first person fails to get their wages. Thursday 27th Feb.
Exiled Celt says:
February 21, 2014 at 5:10 pm
That article which mentions a Membership Scheme at Rangers and supporter involvement reminds me of an Article from 2010 that covers both aspects.
http://celticunderground.net/after-the-ball/
Celtic have explored the Membership Scheme idea since but it is currently on a back burner, although if RIFC introduce one that makes money then that might put it up front once more.
On supporter involvement there has been progress since Celtic employed a Supporter Liaison Officer to meet a UEFA Licensing requirement last summer.
In fact the first Supporters Forum met on Wednesday and the minutes should be on the Celtic web site tomorrow (Saturday).
One of the interesting aspects in terms of spreading the income, which I have been advocating, is that the messing about with fixtures to suit TV is probably costing Celtic money as the loss of 3pm KOs on a Saturday is a reason SB sales are dropping, particularly for supporters travelling a distance..
Whilst other clubs do not face this disruption to the same extent or cost, the TV money they get more than compensates but that cannot be said for Celtic whose TV share is less than the cost of the drop in match day income.
A drop of 5000 SBS @£500 cost Celtic £2.5M whilst this report from The Guardian
“The demotion (not my words btw) of Rangers led to the league’s new (but unsigned) five-year £80m broadcasting deal with BSkyB and ESPN being axed, which, after much wrangling, was replaced days before the start of the SPL season by an agreement thought to be worth around £50m to the 12 SPL teams over the same period.”
suggests SPL: clubs get around £833, 333 if disbursed evenly. Even if Celtic were to get a bit more it is easy to see how the deal could be costing them income at the gate, but agreement was the necessary price of having teams to play against and Celtic of course have access to CL revenue and a good develop and sell business model to fall back on.
Not that this changes the argument for a more equitable sharing, especially CL income, but it is a reflection of not only how interdependent the game is, but also the narrow margins of balance at play. Trim too much off Celtic then its adios to the CL for Scotland and what income Celtic do provide for Scottish clubs as they strive to stay at CL level.
Difficult as it might be it is time our clubs started to fight back against the devastating effect TV and CL income distribution is having on them. Perhaps in a country where match attendances are the highest in Europe pro rata of population, the question should be how much would the gates need to rise to compensate for a £10M a year loss and if there was no live televised games at weekends, would crowds rise sufficiently to compensate?
Time to think out the box, so to speak or is wait for a return to the days of the deal that was axed which required 4 OF games a season and trampled all over any concept of sporting integrity?
@GeronimosCadillac. Feb22. 1:01am.
Cheers for the Campbellsmoney clarification bud. It helps a lot….I think. Lol. Sometimes its hard to differentiate what you want to think, with what is right to think.
So a cross border doc may be required for a
Floating charge, I don’t know if I’m wiser or dafter. ❓
BP had a Podcast chat with Stuart Cosgrove last night on matters such as the Media (Social and Mainstream), Gretna, Rangers, Celtic, CtH and anonymity – as well as St. Johnstone of course!
All great stuff, with one particularly interesting exclusive 🙂 …. and well over an hour of it. Should be edited ready for a final polish by Saturday or Sunday.
Argh!
Why am I always offshore with poor/restricted wifi when this stuff is released!
A thought arose to me after reading the posts of all the comments regarding the 1.5 million pound “loan” that will be repaid by shares – if agreed – thus making Easdales and Laxey bigger shareholders in RIFC.
It occurred to me that last week that many articles were written by MSM encouraging the RST goals to buy shares in order to get some say or even control over all of the RIFC decsions.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rangers-supporters-trust-buy-up-more-shares-1-3303733
Even players were brought out to push the idea as viable – Alex Rae and Richard Gough in this article
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/alex-rae-richard-gough-back-rangers-fan-ownership-1-3301143
Before I get pounced on here – I am not mocking the efforts of RST – I am wondering why last week RST were encouraged to buy more shares – only for this week to find that their efforts were entirely for naught by the acquisition potentially of 1.5 million pounds worth of shares by the ones already in control, meaning the 560K shares held by RST (increased last week by 200K) have just been swamped by this news today.
Is it just me or did the days of reports hailing the supporters “reclaiming their club back” went quiet all of a sudden.
Not only has the RST’s mountain to climb been made bigger (even if it was feasible in the first place) but now it would appear to me to have been a complete waste of time should this new share issue be given out for the 1.5 million loan. They are now further behind in % wise than they were before last week’s efforts.
Is it feasible “someone” needed to punt some shares at 26p because they knew they were coming into a lot more at a cheaper price this week. Surely even Jack would not be that nasty to help out his masters like this…….
Maybe it was bad timing – or maybe someone has played them like a violin for their own purposes – but I really feel that a lot of folks are parting with money that they cannot afford to spend – and it all unfortunately is going to fund chateaus and Monaco apts………and for that someone should at the end of the day be hanging their heads in shame. Especially those in MSM and ex players who helped carry the message….
Taysider says:
February 21, 2014 at 11:31 pm
“Excellent post. It’s all about sharing. ”
_______________________
Taysider’s post is pretty much how I view the way forward. It seems to me that at the time of creation of the SPL the OF were keen to extract as much cash as possible from the league, in part, to raise their profile further to engineer a move to the EPL. That never materialised, but the league is now suffering from years of massive inequity of funds; a direct result of the cash and burn approach adopted 15yrs ago.
There is no likely OF move away imminent in the near future, but it would be better to have them commit to the SPFL for stability, rather than talking about European leagues, whenever the next tv deal etc is up for discussion.
I am planning to attend the UTTT also. Work commitments next week mean that it is looking like Thursday or Friday will be the earliest I can attend.
Would wearing an Aberdeen top be contempt of Court 🙂
Exiled Celt on February 22, 2014 at 5:19 am
12 0 Rate This
A thought arose to me after reading the posts of all the comments regarding the 1.5 million pound “loan” that will be repaid by shares – if agreed – thus making Easdales and Laxey bigger shareholders in RIFC …
… Not only has the RST’s mountain to climb been made bigger (even if it was feasible in the first place) but now it would appear to me to have been a complete waste of time should this new share issue be given out for the 1.5 million loan. They are now further behind in % wise than they were before last week’s efforts …
———–
Good observation Exiled. There was a chap from a supporters association (RSA?) interviewed on radio the other night. Was none too happy at the thought of the ‘loans’ that don’t need to be paid back (is there yet another unique tax dodge in there somewhere?). I think he used the phrase ‘onerous terms’ regarding the unknown potential small print in any deal.
It’s been mentioned here many times: the only club the Ibrox faithful will properly own is one that they start from scratch, with no connection to the physical stadium or regime in Govan. They have already wasted two years and tens of millions that could have gone to a genuine fan-owned football club. At some point, someone among the supporters is surely going suggest the idea on a public forum.
GeronimosCadillac says:
Excellent post. It’s all about sharing. And Stevie Hamill not facing Brian Laudrup just because one club cheated and the other one brought through the youth
________________________________________________________________________________________
All because of one egotistical owner the club embarked on a crazy and unsustainable level of spending, paying transfer fees and wages it simply couldn’t afford which resulted in administration and a number of creditors being fleeced…. but enough about John Boyle and Motherwell.
Removing my tongue from my cheek for a moment, I can’t see how Rangers ‘cheated’ by playing Laudrup. They signed him at a time when transfer fees and wages were not at a ridiculous level and he was a good few years before the EBTs. He was affordable to Rangers at the time and there was nothing wrong with that signing.
GeronimosCadillac says:
Excellent post. It’s all about sharing. And Stevie Hamill not facing Brian Laudrup just because one club cheated and the other one brought through the youth
________________________________________________________________________________________
All because of one egotistical owner the club embarked on a crazy and unsustainable level of spending, paying transfer fees and wages it simply couldn’t afford which resulted in administration and a number of creditors being fleeced…. but enough about John Boyle and Motherwell.
Removing my tongue from my cheek for a moment, I can’t see how Rangers ‘cheated’ by playing Laudrup. They signed him at a time when transfer fees and wages were not at a ridiculous level and he was a good few years before the EBTs. He was affordable to Rangers at the time and there was nothing wrong with that signing.
========================================
I think you are missing the point of the post. The point he was trying to get over was that the youth system was ignored in favour of glory now signings such as Laudrup and all the rest. Unfortunately, the rest of Scottish football tried to follow suite.
Auldheid says:
February 22, 2014 at 2:29 am
18 1 Rate This
=====================
Hi Auldheid,
I found your post about the possible impact of TV coverage on Celtic’s SB sales and attendances quite interesting, possibly even a b it surprising if i am honest – I’d always thought this affected the smaller clubs more than it would Celtic. But maybe the answer is it affects all clubs.
For one thing aren’t most of the Celtic games that get televised actually away matches? I haven’t paid attention this year but in the past I seem to recall this was always the case and by a huge margin.
And for the same reason, fans of smaller clubs I have spoken to all felt aggrieved that its always their home games that are disrupted and suffer loss of income (more pay at the gate than SB) rather than Celtics (or Rangers when they existed).
You’ve certainly give me food for thought though.
I think the important thing is that any more equitable distribution has to be able to take such factors into account.
Personally I think if there was an more equitable distribution of TV money it should be accompanied by more equitable levels of coverage for the clubs. This in turn would actually reduce the hit on Celtics fixture list as well as giving more long overdue exposure to the other clubs.
Another approach might be to include a compensation fee for the home team of each televised fixture. This would be taken from the TV cash pot before it is distributed and would be some compensation for the loss of match day income that TV brings.
cosmichaggis says:
I think you are missing the point of the post. The point he was trying to get over was that the youth system was ignored in favour of glory now signings such as Laudrup and all the rest. Unfortunately, the rest of Scottish football tried to follow suite.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Not focusing on the youth system was not ‘cheating’, though. It’s unbelievably short-sighted. I maintain that Laudrup was a fantastic signing and he is probably the wrong player to mention in terms of criticizing Rangers transfer policy. Oleg Salenko, Peter van Vossen, Eric Bo Andersen, Basil Bol, Gordon Petrici…. the list of expensive and pointless signings from that era is long. Really long. I watched all of them.
I agree that they completely ignored their young players when they should have given more of them a change but Laudrup was the wrong player to highlight and ‘cheating’ was the wrong choice of word.
Not focusing on the youth system was not ‘cheating’, though. It’s unbelievably short-sighted. I maintain that Laudrup was a fantastic signing and he is probably the wrong player to mention in terms of criticizing Rangers transfer policy. Oleg Salenko, Peter van Vossen, Eric Bo Andersen, Basil Bol, Gordon Petrici…. the list of expensive and pointless signings from that era is long. Really long. I watched all of them.
I agree that they completely ignored their young players when they should have given more of them a change but Laudrup was the wrong player to highlight and ‘cheating’ was the wrong choice of word.
====================
Yes you are correct, “cheating” in relation to Laudrup was probably the wrong choice of word – perhaps short sighted would have been a better word. But every club in Scotland could be labelled with that description in following suite.
Auldheid says:
February 22, 2014 at 2:29 am
18 1 Rate This
Have to agree with Matty – perhaps memory is failing me, but the only Celtic and Rangers home league games to get shown on TV were the Old Firm games. Not only were they not taking a hit on their gate money, but they were getting a share of TV money for games, whereas most away sides got little in that respect, because their game(with the exception of perhaps the odd Edinburgh derby) would never be shown.
I think it was one of the main bones of contention among non-old firm fans. Given the terms of the TV deal, a loss of about 750 punters off the gate due to live coverage would have easily negated the tv money for that broadcast (although that’s back of the fag packet!).
Campbellsmoney says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:50 am
“Although I wasn’t there at the time of the relevant conversation I have heard the word “debenture” used in conversation a lot more than most people.”
———————————
This is the audio where the word ‘debenture’ crops up. The pertinent passages commence around 26 mins and finish around 33 mins:
https://soundcloud.com/peterjung1/charlotte-fakeover-charles-1
I do notice that when Craig Whyte asserts the debenture will survive liquidation, Charles Green has a little verbal stumble and mentions Scottish League rather than Scottish Law. Not sure if this indicated something stuck in his craw at that moment. As for the plausibility of a debenture surviving the failure of a CVA, para 5.0 of the covering letter that accompanies the Sale and Purchase Agreement might shed some light.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142103828/Letter-and-SPA
This next post is a wee bit OT, but it is related in terms of all those gents of Rangersness who the SMSM think will ride to the rescue..
I know a wealthy gent in the North East who was a member of the Club Deck at Ibrox. He freely admits that he wasn’t really all that bothered about the game itself, but the Club Deck was the place to be. To rub shoulders with other so called masters of industry. It was a great place to be seen, to network and to be associated with the club during their glory years and to be with “in club” whatever that was – he didn’t elaborate.
The point I am making I think, is that all the talk of all these wealthy sugar daddies lining up to help is pure myth and fantasy. The club or clubs that these gents were interested in did not extent to the club playing football on the park or anywhere else. The membership offered more to them in business relationships than kicking a pig bladder around – his words not mine.
All’s well at ibrox as the £1.5m loan was “planned” 😕 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-insist-15m-loan-club-3171625?
Something I’ve learned this week is that the Sevco loan has taught us that the decimal point doesnt travel well through the copy paste internet link continuum
Pritchett’s analysis of Scottish fitba stands up but there is an easy fix for his 150,000 vs 900,000 viewing figures depending on whether it’s diddies or OF. A quick search shows that there are 6,000,000 subscribers to Sky Sports, adopt the same principle as the big clubs use when reporting attendance, ergo 6,000,000 viewers for a game on Sky.
(Only joking of course, what a silly idea.)
The mention of Brian Laudrup is interesting since he was the result of the Brøndby youth setup. He won two senior championship medals with Brøndby before making a sensible move to Bayer Urdingen, a lesson many young Scots lads could learn from. The point of that move was to take him a small step up where he could shine as a small fish among other small fish, but in a slightly bigger fish pond. He moved quickly to Bayern M as a result, and the rest is history.
A bit ironic if top clubs lose money because of TV slavery. I understood that point of the SPL breakaway was to increase revenue from putting on more attractive matches. To be honest, the willingness of TV companies to broadcast TRFC in the lower divisions seems to contradict that.
I had a wee look at the league table for 1974-75. Hard to believe now that Dumbarton, Ayr U, Arbroath (SFNaSA, oh yes), Airdrieonians, Clyde, Morton, were all part of the top flight before being cut adrift. For me, it’s not hard to imagine a Hamilton, Falkirk, Dunfermline and QoS as part of the big boys’ league these days. A split could be maintained and a 3-up / 3-down scenario with play-offs, and the like would spread the TV interest and money around — and alleviate the 4 x season (minimum) tedium.
I would still contend that the insistence on mind-numbingly repetitive matches caused by the shrunken league is causing apathy among supporters and players alike.
Danish Pastry says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:00 am
==================================
Scottish Football has been rigged for the past 20 years or so.
Now that the riggers are in their death throes, I think we’ll see things improve over time.
It’s too soon to be tinkering with League sizes and TV money.
ICT, Celtic and Aberdeen sharing the trophies would be fantastic, and who knows maybe The Dons can challenge Celtic next season for the League.
Long Time Lurker says:
February 22, 2014 at 7:23 am
———————————————————–
I can’t make it till Thursday either, babysitting grandweans and doing supply work at start of week.
See you all there.
I’ve always wondered and never found the time to investigate how the leagues would have looked if the old points system was in place. Anyone else ever pondered on this ?
Good morning
So the £1.5M is part of a plan.
Of course it is; its the plan to limp along till the spivs can fleece the bears for the ST money.
At best it is selling your breakfast to pay for your dinner.
It is myopic in the extreme and the bubble will surely burst, although not before everyone from the SFA,SPL,Sports Direct, TV companies all weigh in with their much needed money to get to the end of the season.
With reference to Albion Rovers I hope they don’t get stuffed for their money.
Always had a soft spot for them when Big Tam Louchran, my latin teacher in 1963 played for them. I remember wee Smithy the head of the annexe giving us permission to go and watch them one afternoon and I was stood next to Billy McNeil who was watching the game.
I would love to see them turn over the bears.
On the subject of a deed of novation or a release, the following may seem niaive but in the real world it happens.
If Charles Green was trusted by D&P and if he was the only director of Sevco 5088 then all that would be needed is his word to tell D&P that he wanted things into Sevco Scotland. This I think is less likely however than the fact that he may have produced a simple letter of instruction authorising them to do so.
Somewhere there will be a record and unless the lawyers have blindly followed D&P instruction without question then the lawyers will have the letter as a link in the Title.
If anyone is looking for paperwork it is almost certainly with the lawyers who did the conveyancing.
In strict terms these things should not happen without the necessary paperwork but when rougues trust each other and think that no one is looking over their shoulder they will do things .
Why? because they can.
ernie says:
February 22, 2014 at 10:56 am
3 1 Rate This
Pritchett’s analysis of Scottish fitba stands up but there is an easy fix for his 150,000 vs 900,000 viewing figures depending on whether it’s diddies or OF. A quick search shows that there are 6,000,000 subscribers to Sky Sports, adopt the same principle as the big clubs use when reporting attendance, ergo 6,000,000 viewers for a game on Sky.
(Only joking of course, what a silly idea.)
================================================
It does all become a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy though if coverage is almost exclusively 1 or 2 teams. I only 2 teams are adequately covered then within 10 – 15 years can we really expect the viewers to be interested in the clubs that have been so poorly served.
On top of that the lack of money available to the other teams means poorer quality football on display in those games.
Finally I wonder just what proportion of say Hearts fans pay for SKY/BT Sport compared to proportion of say Rangers fans? I’d bet far higher proportion of OF fans pay for SKY than fans of the other clubs – simply because fans of other clubs only get 2 or 3 games a year of their own team to watch – its not worth the money for most.
So a bit more exposure to the other clubs, a bit more money and a bit more effort to cover and sell their games might make a fair difference to the 150,000 vs 900,00 disparity – but only if given a chance.
Campbellsmoney says:
February 21, 2014 at 3:11 pm
10 3 Rate This
upthehoops – why do you feel let down? Are you a creditor?
If so – your remedy was to apply to the court under para 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. If you are not a creditor I struggle to see why your (or my) views on the conduct of an insolvency in which we do not have a pecuniary interest is of relevance. The insolvency is for the benefit of creditors not football fans. As to why any creditor who did felt aggreived didn’t avail themselves of this option, I don’t know. Its a question for the creditors. If they didn’t care enough about their own interests, why should we?
We are all indirectly creditors by virtue of being taxpayers – ask the question of HMRC.
Who should have done something to force an auction?
================================================
Just getting to this for various reasons.
I speak as a layman, you clearly have knowledge of insolvency law. My view is laws are in place to protect innocent people, which in this case are the creditors and the taxpayers. If an insolvency process is governed by a court then surely it is not too much to ask the court ensures the creditors get the best possible deal by having effective oversight. If the police witness a man being beaten up in the street by four other men, I would expect the police to act and protect the victim, whether or not he actually complains about it. What has the court done to protect the creditors? Is there no process to step in and ask why something is being sold way below its value and why? If there isn’t there certainly should be.
In terms of you being ‘proud’ of the Scottish insolvency system, well carry on. This particular case has been nothing short of a public disgrace, and it’s not just football fans who think so. Why have a process that can be so openly gerrymandered to make a small number of people very rich? That’s not much to be proud of if you ask me, but clearly what most people believe to be right and decent matters not a jot to the establishment.
Matty Roth says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:14 pm
1 0 Rate This
It does all become a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy though if coverage is almost exclusively 1 or 2 teams. I only 2 teams are adequately covered then within 10 – 15 years can we really expect the viewers to be interested in the clubs that have been so poorly served.
On top of that the lack of money available to the other teams means poorer quality football on display in those games.
Finally I wonder just what proportion of say Hearts fans pay for SKY/BT Sport compared to proportion of say Rangers fans? I’d bet far higher proportion of OF fans pay for SKY than fans of the other clubs – simply because fans of other clubs only get 2 or 3 games a year of their own team to watch – its not worth the money for most.
_______________________________________
Exactly.
Back in the days of the old Setanta pay per view, it may some sense for me to pay to watch my SPL team in the league, however I can’t justify paying Sky for the 2-4 games per season on offer. It is better (and cheaper) to head to the pub on those few occasions. The only fans who get a reasonable deal from Sky are fans of the OF.
I would probably pay to watch a cheap and poor regular service even if it was just a single camera that they have set up for highlights if it was on offer, but it isn’t…
parttimearab says:
February 22, 2014 at 10:39 am
All’s well at ibrox as the £1.5m loan was “planned” 😕 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-insist-15m-loan-club-3171625?
______________________________________________
And it’s announced by none other than Mr Rangers, Ally McCoist, a man who’s knowledge of all things financial is second to none. He is so knowledgeable, in fact, that he doesn’t even need to read contracts before signing them.
More seriously, does the fact that it was McCoist telling the world, and not a board member making an official announcement to allay further speculation, mean that SE/AIM regulations regarding false statements don’t come into play? Would be handy that.
It seems strange, that a few days after announcing what most see as a ‘crisis loan’ is required, but not yet finalised, it should be announced it’s alright, it was planned, so it’s not a ‘crisis loan’. If I was being cynical I’d be inclined to suggest that it’s as if the board, after the way this loan news has been seen as proof of a crisis, even among their own fans, have decided they need to say something positive about it, and have chosen the one the fans might believe, but the market will ignore, to break the news. Again, why involve someone who should have no part of board meetings in London while, supposedly, preparing his team for this weekend’s game?
Of course, the DR omits to make the point that the loan could have been planned a week in advance, or even a day! And we also know they’ve been trawling the city, and elsewhere, for a loan for a few weeks, (thanks Phil) and it could have been planned as early as the day after the AGM, because even a blind man could see from the books that it was required, just to keep the club going.
briggsbhoy says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:41 am
1 1 Rate This
I’ve always wondered and never found the time to investigate how the leagues would have looked if the old points system was in place. Anyone else ever pondered on this ?
=====================================================
I’ve always thought the gap between the top teams and the rest would have been reduced quite a bit in this case. Can’t swear to that as I haven’t done the maths but I’m thinking with Celtic and when they existed Rangers winning such a high percentage of the games against the rest then the effect of 3 point for a win is probably worth 3 or 4 points over every other team.
One other factor that would reduce the points gap is if we could support a league that meant teams playing each other twice a year instead of 4 times. Obviously this would also have an effect on reducing a gap where 1 or 2 teams a hugely dominant over the other, ie a chasing team like Motherwell would have a far better chance of keeping close to Celtic if Motherwell and Celtic only played each other twice rather than four times (where the advantages of being a bigger club and better team are driven home over the 4 games).
Matty Roth says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm
1 0 Rate This
… One other factor that would reduce the points gap is if we could support a league that meant teams playing each other twice a year instead of 4 times. Obviously this would also have an effect on reducing a gap where 1 or 2 teams a hugely dominant over the other, ie a chasing team like Motherwell would have a far better chance of keeping close to Celtic if Motherwell and Celtic only played each other twice rather than four times (where the advantages of being a bigger club and better team are driven home over the 4 games).
———–
Absolutely right Matty. There are simple solutions to our bizarrely uneven league staring us in the face. Isn’t it amazing that only two years ago the “only solution” to Scottish football’s ills that was being suggested was a 10-team league!
I see Mrs Budge has just arrived at Tynecastle. Funny that the only sugar daddy turns out to be a sugar mammy … love it 🙂
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:21 am
17 1 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:00 am
==================================
Scottish Football has been rigged for the past 20 years or so.
Now that the riggers are in their death throes, I think we’ll see things improve over time.
It’s too soon to be tinkering with League sizes and TV money.
ICT, Celtic and Aberdeen sharing the trophies would be fantastic, and who knows maybe The Dons can challenge Celtic next season for the League.
———–
Agree about the improvement that will come, though only with wider leagues, more promotion/relegation. It can be done … where legals dare.
incredibleadamspark says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:17 am
Removing my tongue from my cheek for a moment, I can’t see how Rangers ‘cheated’ by playing Laudrup. They signed him at a time when transfer fees and wages were not at a ridiculous level and he was a good few years before the EBTs. He was affordable to Rangers at the time and there was nothing wrong with that signing.
===============================================
Affordable only because the Bank of Scotland were willing to fund them way beyond a level they would for any other similar sized business.
Congratulations to Fraser Forster for his shut out record today at Tynecastle.
As the minutes moved towards the record I wondered what would happen, totally hypothetically of course, if he’d given away a penalty and been sent off. Assuming the penalty was converted, would he still be in line for the record? To be honest I suspect he would be, but just think of the screams from Govan of a tainted record. As if they don’t have any!
I’m with Allyjambo.
McCoist is once again being put forward as the front for getting the season ticket money in for the Spivs.
For a guy with no interest in the financial side of things why has he suddenly been let in on the inner workings of the club/company ? Only the other week he was telling us Wallace wasn’t talking money but just principles etc about where the club is heading. Now, like many other areas, he is an expert in all matters financial and “By the way I am not saying buy your season tickets yet but just reminding you that they will be out soon so why don’t you go and buy them”!!!!!”
How much spin can the Bears actually take?
Allyjambo says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm
6
0
Rate This
parttimearab says:
February 22, 2014 at 10:39 am
All’s well at ibrox as the £1.5m loan was “planned” 😕 http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-insist-15m-loan-club-3171625?
______________________________________________
And it’s announced by none other than Mr Rangers, Ally McCoist, a man who’s knowledge of all things financial is second to none. He is so knowledgeable, in fact, that he doesn’t even need to read contracts before signing them.
….
_______________________________________________
The article says ‘was part of a business plan’, not ‘planned’.
So I would conclude that this loan does indeed consitute part of a ‘business plan’, to wit that ‘business plan’ which resulted from the initial phase of the 120 day review they are half way through putting together to try and save the new club from the consequences of its past excesses.
Now whether part of that business plan involves administration remains to be seen.
I am not a betting man, but I would wager the business plan of which it forms part looks something like the following.
TRFC business plan:
Step 1:
Crisis loan for short term funding
Step 2:
Extreme cost cutting
Step 3:
Massive Season ticket price increases
Step 4:
Rights Issue/ share sale.
I have labelled these elements ‘steps’ although they could also be viewed as ‘hurdles’ to be cleared.
Administration would be the inevitable consequence of failing to clear any one of the above hurdles in my view. While the potential to clear all 4 still exists in potentia, Wallace can legitimately claim that admin is not in the plan.
And it looks like Wallace has cleared hurdle/ step number 1. Well done him! Lets see how he gets on with the others. God loves a trier!
I expect the next move would be focused on step 2 – to wit
(a) Redundancies – part funded through the £1.5m ‘not a crisis loan, bless me no sir!’ cash.
(b) Renegotiation of contracts – including supply and player contracts.
(b) will be along the lines of -“Sorry, we need to renegotiate the terms of this contract: Accept a cut or breach by us of the more onerous terms, and you will be paid something. Fail to accept a cut and we will seek the protection of administration. You will get next to nothing. But we will emerge in some form (dunnit before!)”
And they won’t be bluffing. Whether admin results from step 2 will depend on whether one of the suppliers or contractors wants to and can afford to take them down to teach them a lesson, or has nothing to lose by doing so.
Of course if they tried this tack with someone like HMRC as oldco did, they’d be told to ‘get bent’ in no uncertain terms.
But with ‘softer’ suppliers, mebbes some – most or all even – might go for it. Throw in a few D4E swaps along the way (i.e. pay people in shares) to sweeten a bitter pill for the suppliers, at the same time as taking out the critical cash flow element for TRFC, and they could possibly pull it off, who knows!
And with the players it should be easy enough: ‘If you were worth that we could and would have sold you! If you don’t take a pay cut or part payment in shares, YOU will be blamed for administration. Sign here or leave quietly without a fuss with a modest fraction of your contractual entitlement. Wanna sue us?”
The ‘bullets in the post’ implication should get them to toe the line, and with the :slamb: on side, there should be no problem freeing TRFC of ‘Baldes’ i.e. players on lucrative contracts signed in good faith that have now become something of a financial drag.
In London so won’t be at the UTT. One suggestion I would make to those going is always check with the clerk of the court if there are any reporting restrictions, posting on here about what happens counts as publishing so you are liable if you breach any of the judge’s orders.
A friend put together this guide to reporting in court a few years ago, it’s for criminal cases but may be useful.
http://openjusticeuk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/beginners-guide-to-court-reporting.html
Looking forward to reading people’s take on the proceedings
Danish Pastry says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:45 pm
7 0 Rate This
Matty Roth says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:30 pm
1 0 Rate This
… One other factor that would reduce the points gap is if we could support a league that meant teams playing each other twice a year instead of 4 times. Obviously this would also have an effect on reducing a gap where 1 or 2 teams a hugely dominant over the other, ie a chasing team like Motherwell would have a far better chance of keeping close to Celtic if Motherwell and Celtic only played each other twice rather than four times (where the advantages of being a bigger club and better team are driven home over the 4 games).
———–
Absolutely right Matty. There are simple solutions to our bizarrely uneven league staring us in the face. Isn’t it amazing that only two years ago the “only solution” to Scottish football’s ills that was being suggested was a 10-team league!
I see Mrs Budge has just arrived at Tynecastle. Funny that the only sugar daddy turns out to be a sugar mammy … love it 🙂
=====================================================
One problem with the “experts” paid to give an opinion on our game is that they would tend to only look at any one of these points in isolation and on that basis decide they won’t make any difference and discard them.
Clearly the effect needed is of a range of small measures which have a combined effect. Things like a v. “mild” sharing of incomes, expanded league, more evenly distributed prize money, TV deals that give fair coverage and compensate or balance the impact they have on gate fees for clubs – these sort of things would have little effect by themselves but together and over a reasonable period of time for the effect to work through the system they might change our game to make it competitive again.
upthehoops says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:39 pm
4 1 Rate This
incredibleadamspark says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:17 am
Removing my tongue from my cheek for a moment, I can’t see how Rangers ‘cheated’ by playing Laudrup. They signed him at a time when transfer fees and wages were not at a ridiculous level and he was a good few years before the EBTs. He was affordable to Rangers at the time and there was nothing wrong with that signing.
===============================================
Affordable only because the Bank of Scotland were willing to fund them way beyond a level they would for any other similar sized business.
-————————————————————————————————————————————————
Not at that time, upthehoops. In the early 90’s when wages and transfer fees weren’t totally out of control, like they are now, Rangers could afford players like Laudrup. The excessive and slightly dodgy borrowings and subsequent EBTs came towards the end of Smiths time and funded the Advacaat era. Rangers were once a sustainable football club brought down by a need to try and play with the big boys. The couldn’t afford to do that and the rest is, as they say, history.
Broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:21 am
23 1 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:00 am
==================================
Scottish Football has been rigged for the past 20 years or so.
Now that the riggers are in their death throes, I think we’ll see things improve over time.
It’s too soon to be tinkering with League sizes and TV money.
ICT, Celtic and Aberdeen sharing the trophies would be fantastic, and who knows maybe The Dons can challenge Celtic next season for the League.
=================================
I heartily agree seeing the removal of the rigging as you put it of our game (by which I take it you mean the league, TV and revenue distribution) will over team allow a certain amount of healing to take place.
However I really have to disagree on the chances of Afc, Motherwell or Dundee Utd providing a real challenge to Celtic in the current set up – it’s just not realistic I’m afraid. The gap is too significant and there is nothing proactively done to bridge or reduce the gap even a little.
Danish Pastry says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Agree about the improvement that will come, though only with wider leagues, more promotion/relegation. It can be done … where legals dare.
==========================================
Nice one!!
I agree that changes need to be made.
That change has to be such that it provides a challenge to Celtic.
At the moment, the rigging (and by that I mean cheating) still affects the game.
I reckon when more teams have had a sniff at silverware over the next few seasons and perhaps a chance of beating the cheater’s tribute act, we’ll see more interest in the product, that’s when the legals should dare.
(DP – can you tell me anything about Frederikshavn? I’ve got some work to do there in March)
Resin_lab_dog says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:49 pm
I suppose it could all be contained within their business plan, possibly where it says, ‘just before the sh*t hits the fan, panic! Get a loan, do something, but whatever you do, keep the lights on.’ 😀
I suspect, though, that Wallace is operating from a turnaround or rescue plan rather than a business plan, and I also suspect that any borrowing would be included as a contingency measure should his attempts to cut costs fail, rather than part of the actual ‘plan’. I should think it could only be a part of any plan if they already held an agreement in principal for the loan. I haven’t read anywhere that the loan has now been agreed, let alone agreed in principal when any ‘plan’ was drawn up.
So Alistair wont mind explaining the terms of the wonga deal to the Bers and what the payback is ,the biggest question that needs asked ,why only 1.5m as everyone knows they need a lot more than this
Getting back to the “planned” £1.5m loan.
Should GW’s first step have been to get on the blower to Deloittes with an emphatic WTF!
Was it in their plan?
I am sure they would be able to tell him in minutes, what has changed between them signing off the going concern, and now.
incredibleadamspark says:
February 22, 2014 at 2:41 pm
0
9
Rate This
Quantcast
upthehoops says:
February 22, 2014 at 1:39 pm
4 1 Rate This
incredibleadamspark says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:17 am
Removing my tongue from my cheek for a moment, I can’t see how Rangers ‘cheated’ by playing Laudrup. They signed him at a time when transfer fees and wages were not at a ridiculous level and he was a good few years before the EBTs. He was affordable to Rangers at the time and there was nothing wrong with that signing.
===============================================
Affordable only because the Bank of Scotland were willing to fund them way beyond a level they would for any other similar sized business.
-————————————————————————————————————————————————
Not at that time, upthehoops. In the early 90′s when wages and transfer fees weren’t totally out of control, like they are now, Rangers could afford players like Laudrup. The excessive and slightly dodgy borrowings and subsequent EBTs came towards the end of Smiths time and funded the Advacaat era. Rangers were once a sustainable football club brought down by a need to try and play with the big boys. The couldn’t afford to do that and the rest is, as they say, history.
==================================
In the early 90’s Rangers banked with RBS. They were desperate to get rid of it due to Murray’s excesses even then. BofS stepped in and the rest is history.
FIFA
why only 1.5m as everyone knows they need a lot more than this
——————-
maybe the shres they get for it will push them up to 75% and allow them to pass resolution 10 that the spivs narrowly missed at the AGM.
Then flood the place with extra shares and get the season ticket money in the swag bag 😀 .
but im often wrong as my good lady will tell you .
Hoopy 7 says:
February 22, 2014 at 11:47 am
‘……when rougues trust each other and think that no one is looking over their shoulder they will do things .
Why? because they can.’
———–
But not quite with the same impunity as before.
And remember, rogues by definition do not know the concept of trust. Being evil themselves, they assume everyone else is evil.They are incapable of genuine trust, and each significant party in the saga will ,like CW, have been careful to cover his own back as much as he possibly could.And be ready to shop his partners in any skulduggery to save himself.
No question.
Looks like the wonga deal is on the rangers players minds ,1-2 to Steny.
FIFA says:
February 22, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Looks like the wonga deal is on the rangers players minds ,1-2 to Steny.
—————————————————–
Jinxer 😆 😆 😆
Ah well ,Ally must have upped the win bonus with all that cash he has
Ach well, that’s ref Greg Aitken sacked. How dare he award the opposition a penalty at Ibrokes
Looks like Black has bet the draw 3.3
Ally’s boys well and truly scuppering the admin plans today then
Wildwood beat me to it (was checking the spelling of the cheeky chappie’s forename).
I agree and reckon the Easdale brothers and Laxey will be less than happy with Alistair for disrupting the timing of the insolvency event.
And credit to my team’s goalkeeper, his defence and his coach for breaking an impressive record. Bobby Clark also showed his class on Sky Sports. Always both liked and rated him.
FIFA
why only 1.5m as everyone knows they need a lot more than this
………………..
Various investment bodies (ABI and NAPF ~ Association of British Insurers and National Association of Pension Funds) set rules or guidelines as to what percentage of new shares can be issued without “pre-emption rights” (which is that shares are allocated proportionately to existing holdings).
Resolution 9 from the last AGM sets out the implementation of those rules and ABI and NAPF members would typically vote against a resolution which gave greater powers than those limits
this document gives a lengthy discussion
http://www.taylorwessing.com/uploads/tx_siruplawyermanagement/Secondary_Issues.pdf
if you turn to page 12 of that document you will see that NAPF guideline on AIM companies is a limit of 10% on a “placing”. This loanstock with conversion rights into shares is in terms of City definitions a “placing”.
The number of shares in issue is 65 million, 10% is 6.5 million, which valued at approx 25 p per share is just over £1.5 million.
If RIFC issued more loanstock on these terms they would likely need to go to a “general meeting” for approval, with documents to shareholders, notice periods etc.
[Caveat: I have not worked through the actual limits set out in Resolution 9 (which was passed) to see if there is any variation on the 10% I have simply worked on the basis of the generally accepted levels for a placing, although I will admit that matters around RIFC rarely seem to follow expected norms.]
Regarding tv coverage.
As I understand it the tv companies had the contractual right to show a number of games from the different stadiums.
They were naturally going to use two of those from Celtic Park when Rangers visited and two at Ibrox when Celtic visited. The bottom line for the other grounds is that the biggest draws were when that teams on natural rivals were visiting (say Hearts at Hibs) or when either Celtic or Rangers were there.
The tv companies have to try to maximise viewing figures and that was simply the best way to do it.
Matty Roth says:
February 22, 2014 at 9:46 am
and (Shoperb)
You have a point guys. I should have waited until I read the minutes of the Celtic Supporters Forum that were published this morning to more accurately make the case. I think that because much of the discussion centred around the movement on the Killie game from Sat to Friday I gave the Sat 3pm KO too much emphasis, when it was the uncertainty of when a game might KO that was a big part of the complaint and a reason why gates were down..
Nevertheless the impact of TV on match attendances in a country that traditionally depends on that attendance is a matter of real concern when TV uses it’s bargaining power to pay a pittance compared to the content value to them and what they pay another league in the same country (Better Together pundits please note – not for Scottish football its not – so do something).
I read an article a year or two back which whilst it relates to 2011 and earlier nevertheless focuses on what was debated at the Forum and that was the times and dates TV chooses has a negative impact on attendances and tries to quantify it.
http://www.celtictrust.net/?func=d_home_article&id=259
It is worthy having a read to get folks thinking.
My solution is simple in concept but more difficult to realise because TV viewers get their football very cheaply compared to match attenders and that is to provide Scottish supporters the means to watch their club at a price that is more evenly shared between those who go and those who choose to watch via a screen..
For example an overseas resident subscribing to Celtic TV pays about £180 a season for EVERY Game, not just away games. Compare that to circa £500 for 20 games.
I have an Overseas Season Book which is slightly higher than the concessionary SB book I had prior to heading to warmer winter climes It cost £300 last season when introduced and £250 this season. For that I get a seat at 5 home games if at home and can watch all games on TV when outside the UK. I mean how good a deal is that?
It would be even cheaper had I just subscribed to Celtic TV (without the possibility of attending up to 5 games at home) but the Celtic Foundation use the extra to give my seat to someone in the community not able to pay for their own tickets.
Now if ever there was a way for all clubs to secure their future it is to deliver to their supporters what modern day technology enables and that is to pay to watch your club as suits you, but to make the price the same regardless if you choose to attend in person or view on TV.
What stops that is broadcasting blackout rules, which are themselves a relic of “to air” single game coverage broadcasting when one game only was available and choice was limited to that game. With digital TV, supporters could now choose to support only their own club via IPTV (Streaming) providing a return to the days when geography and the size of population in a geographical area dictated the size of a club.
TV and the big clubs have a vested interest in sticking to the current model that sucks money from smaller clubs but if football supporters stopped subscribing and were prepared to pay a higher price to watch their own teams in their own country then maybe the cold hand of death that the current model has on Scottish Football would be broken.
Good posts by acastofthousands, Taysider and secularfootballfan regarding revenue distribution.
Disappointing it doesn’t get a bigger response, but I can understand why, as this is an awkward topic for Celtic and one even us Diddies are scared to push.
In the simplest sense, the question for Celtic is – Is it better to get a bigger slice of a small pie or a smaller slice of a big pie?
If the promised land of evacuation to the EPL can be discounted, surely every fan of Scottish football, whatever club they support, can see that two things are true:
1) A more competitive league is a more attractive league and will bring in more money.
2) Any revenue sharing will be disproportionate to the size of some clubs, especially the Old Firm, as their apparent huge support & financial advantage is the main reason for the league being less competitive than is ideal.
There can be an argument about how disproportionate any revenue sharing should be, but can anyone see a long term benefit in not increasing revenue sharing in future?