Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?


Ptd1978 says: March 10, 2014 at 10:42 am 1 0 Rate …

Comment on Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed? by tomtom.

ptd1978 says:
March 10, 2014 at 10:42 am
1 0 Rate This

So with a replay any bonus the players may receive for reaching the semis is withheld while the prospect of more cup money still exists.

That’ll help keep them going for one more month
I see that the Albion players were on a bonus of 3 months wages for qualifying. Given that the club will receive another windfall with the replay I hope the players get this bonus irrespective of the result.

tomtom Also Commented

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
neepheid says:
March 26, 2014 at 2:33 pm
3 0 Rate This

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
March 26, 2014 at 2:19 pm

I know there’ll be walk up income,hospitality,the crossbar challenge etc but I can’t see how this adds up to over £11m.
From the accounts to 30 June 2013-

13 month period to 30 June 2013
Gate receipts and hospitality 13,224
Sponsorship and advertising 819
Retail 1,607
Broadcasting rights 778
Commercial 974
Other operating income 1,705


Revenue for the period ended 30 June 2013 totalled £19.1 million. Of this total, gate receipts and hospitality income contributed £13.2 million. During
the period the Club played eighteen home league matches and seven home cup matches. No revenue is recognised in respect of away fixtures except for
a small share of ticket revenue from away cup matches.
Season ticket income of £8.0 million was recognised during the period to 30 June 2013 based on sales of approximately 38,000 season tickets, despite
the Club’s admittance to SFL Division 3.
Broadcasting revenue during the period was limited by playing in SFL Division 3, and therefore having reduced televised matches.
Commercial income of £1.0 million and sponsorship income of £0.8 million recognised during the period to 30 June 2013 includes revenue earned from
agreements with the Club’s sponsors and commercial partners, as well as the sale of matchday publications and monies generated from TV and the SFL
for matches televised or broadcast to the public.
Retail income of £1.6 million was recognised in the period, as the Club’s partnership with to distribute the Club’s merchandise and strips started during the period. No strip launches were included in the reported figures, with the 2013/14 replica strip range being released after the balance sheet date.

Here is the link:
As these accounts are for 13 months we would need to knock off approx £1.58m for the 12 month period. It would be interesting to find out what their income actually was for the “13th” month.

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
rabtdog says:
March 24, 2014 at 12:26 pm
0 0 Rate This

Tomtom 1120hrs
Disagree with you a bit – I’ve always seen the SPL (1998-2013, RIP) as more of a commercial enterprise than a governing body; it was a profit centre in terms of attracting TV and sponsorship income for its members and I see no evidence that it ever treated fans as serious stakeholders, seeing them in much the same way as Tesco views you or I buying groceries (vital but non-participatory)

Maybe that’s the problem. Short term profit versus long term good governance always ends badly.

Scottish Football: An Honest Game, Honestly Governed?
rabtdog says:
March 24, 2014 at 10:40 am

I agree with your comments in that any business facing a loss of 28% of its customer base would do whatever it could to protect its position. However the SPL do not have a customer base in the same sense as a business. Whether one of their members has 10% or 28% does not influence their income. Their role is not to be a profit centre but to be a governing body. The decisions made have, by and large, been the wrong ones. They have systematically failed to communicate with the people who matter – the fans. They have deliberately avoided the transparency that the situation demanded.
They have failed badly in all aspects of this case. That heads haven’t rolled is a mystery to most people.

Recent Comments by tomtom

SFM – The Next Steps
Esteban says:
Member: (91 comments)
May 22, 2015 at 11:56 am
Finloch at 10:13 am

Very good, amigo.
A question arises, however. Who are the Easedales? Where did they fit in? Where are they now?
Counting the profits from the tenders that they have been awarded since they went “high profile”. Their “investments” in RFC were a small price to pay.

Succulent lamb is not only served to journalists.

Spot the difference?
Paulmac2 says:
February 25, 2015 at 12:03 am
If the club cannot be punished then it stands to reason the SFA has the responsibility to prevent the identified group from attending similar events…either by playing behind closed doors or witholding away tickets…

Within 2 games it will stop…that is how easy it is…unless of course you support racism.
When the offence takes place at an away ground, in addition to a ban on the travelling support, the offending club should be fined an amount equal to or exceeding their ticket allocation for their next away game. This money should then be given to the opposition as they shouldn’t suffer from the drop in revenue due to a ban on the travelling support.

Spot the difference?
Bawsman says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm
2 2 Rate This

Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm

The old Celtic Park did indeed have a Rangers end…………That was (like Hampden) the covered end 👿
The Rangers end at CP was covered in 1967. The Celtic end was first covered around 1958 – although it did not extend all the way to the front of the terracing.

Spot the difference?
If I was Kenny Macdowall and I wanted to get the hell out of Dodge with my full entitlement I’d leave the 5 loanee’s out of any future squads. 😈 😈

Spot the difference?
bad capt madman says:
February 3, 2015 at 9:41 am
2 0 Rate This

So no one in the SFA thinks the sectarian singing at the Sunday semi final needs investigating?? Really? It was heard in over 50 countries apparently. Do rules not apply to TRFC?
(Serious question actually, no laughing at the back)
The SFA will, as always, do nothing. Police Scotland have already stated that the VAST majority of fans were well behaved. However, if you break down the numbers, you have 50,000 fans attending. Split 50/50 gives you 25,000 per side. 20,000, or 40%, of one side behave appallingly. That means that 30,000, or 60%, behaved well. Seems like an overwhelming majority to me. Of course an old cynic like me would say that this was abusing the statistics but who cares about me when the truth can be so easily distorted to suit.

About the author