Good Evening.
When considering any type of protracted negotiation or discussion that seems to be going on too long, there is a story that is always worth remembering– whether it is actually a true story or not as the case may be.
It is said, that heads of state all met at a congress in what is now modern Germany sometime after the Franco Prussian war of 1870-1871.The entire congress was being run almost singlehandedly by the then Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismark and he was keen to get all the necessary signatures on paper to seal some deal or other.
However, others at the congress were not too keen to sign up to certain elements of the proposed deal and so they hithered and dithered and in the eyes of Bismark they simply waisted time by concentrating on the minutiae- the little matters, with a view to ensuring their own interests were best served in these small areas– and did not focus on the big issue.
Having tried to talk these others round and educate them in his own beliefs and point of view on the bigger picture without any success, Bismark grew weary of the continuing delay and the posturing of his colleagues. All attempts at reason and diplomacy had failed in his eyes and so he decided to take a different tack.
Accordingly, it is said that whilst others were still inside debating endlessly on this matter or that, Bismark left the building and began simply shooting the windows in with the aid of a riffle which he just happened to have handy.
Those inside were naturally alarmed at this turn of events. They soon forgot about the minutiae under debate, they abandoned the previously expressed self interest and simply signed up so that they could get away from the mad chancellor and his house.
Job done so to speak.
Whilst I do not in anyway condone the behaviour of Otto von Bismark in this instance, and have no doubt that he was an autocrat, what I will say is that he believed that there was too much time being spent on the unimportant stuff and not enough time recognising what really needed doing– from his point of view of course.
Today– and it seems every day for months— we have endless debate about the future of Scottish Football. League reconstruction and the redistribution of footballing wealth has become a marathon– even before it has started.
Yet I believe that at the moment all parties concerned are not focusing on the radical reform that is fundamentally needed which is the creation of one, strong, properly structured and constituted body which is capable of the proper and ethical governance of Scottish Football and the business that surrounds football.
No matter what system you try, or distribution you agree, without proper sensible strong governance you are wasting your time.
Further, whatever body is set up, and whoever is chosen to be its CEO (or whatever the head honcho is going to be called), they must tackle the issue of corporate and fiscal compliance and the proper administration of any body corporate which actively takes part in Scottish Football– and that includes any such body or person who is involved in the running of a member club.
In addition, in so dealing with any corporate malfeasance or chicanery or whatever, the rules have to be applied with a rod of iron by an iron body.
As we can now clearly see, Football clubs and football in general is not, and never will be, immune from the effects of bad corporate governance and on occasion downright manipulation of facts, figures and contracts.
Whilst great play has been made of the fact that Gavin Masterton has handed over his shares in Dunfermline FC ( or its holding company ) the fact of the matter is that this in no way solves the problem faced by the football club. Whoever gains control of that club will still have to rent the ground from Mr Masterton’s company– and it is a rent that the club may just not be able to afford.
Ever!
It is only my opinion of course, but I am of the view that Mr Masterton has sealed a loan deal with his bankers which is of a type and duration which could not normally be achieved by other borrowers. The Loan has a lengthy period during which no repayments are necessary and interest can continue to accrue.
All very good you may say, but the level of debt concerned is not one that appears to be sustainable by Dunfermline FC and so whoever buys the club as a going concern ( if anyone buys it at all ) will have to pay an agreed rental to Gavin Masterton– and if the rental is not sufficient to repay Mr Masterton’s lenders, then I suspect that the end game here will be a search to find a buyer for the ground at some point over the next twenty years or so, with the hope that as part of the deal a space will be found somewhere for a new ground like New St Mirren park– the difference being that in that instance St Mirren were in charge of their future whereas Dunfermline are not.
The Governance of that club and the financial arrangements behind the club should have been looked at and examined by the SFA long before now– and the Dunfermline fans warned about the dangers of any such arrangements. Effectively those finance arrangements, should they continue, will probably mean that the club will have no option but to move from its established home!
All to suit one man!
Thankfully Dundee were spared a full takeover by Giovanni Di Stefano, however is it not a bit worrying that this man who has been jailed for over 14 years for various fraudulent acts, was allowed to roam around Scottish Football for a prolonged period?
Not so long ago Di Stefano did play a part at Dens, was in line to buy almost 30% of the shareholding, and was oft quoted in the papers and so on. The thing is that there were those who were prepared to give him a place at the Dundee table and in so doing invited him into Scottish Football.
Surely the SFA, had they been inclined to, could quite easily have pointed out that many of the claims of Mr Di Stefano were at least dubious if not completely incorrect? Yet nothing was being said at the time and silence prevailed.
Whilst not in the same calibre as Di Dtefano, Vladimir Romanov has now been at Hearts for a prolonged period. While I have no quibbles about the legality of Romanov’s takeover of Hearts, any money of a sizeable size which is transferred into Scotland from a foreign country will be subject to scrutiny by the Crown office to ensure that it is clean. Lithuania in particular is said to have a banking system which is governed loosely and sometimes does not meet the compliance standards expected in this country.
With his bank having gone bust, Romanov still retains the majority shareholding at Tynecastle, but there are questions still to be answered about what has happened at Hearts but life will be very different for the Edinburgh club going forward.
Again– could the SFA have done more to monitor the situation and could they have demanded clarity and detail from the Hearts owner as to his business dealings and the detailed arrangements with his bank?
At Ibrox, well things just go from the weird and inexplicable to downright astonishing– and all through a tremendous amount of smoke and mirrors.
It is clear that the SFA have no idea what to believe from Charles Green or for that matter Craig Whyte. On the face of it, there are clear links between Whyte and Green with the former paying over a six figure sum in return for absolutely nothing it would appear– with similar transactions going between Whyte’s colleague, Aiden Early, and Charles Green.
What is clear is that Green gave a clear undertaking to the SFA that he had nothing whatsoever to do with Whyte and would have nothing to do with Whyte going forward. Now, at the very least he is admitting that he met Whyte on several occasions, and whilst he may have made representations to Craig Whyte— these were all lies designed only to get Whyte to where Green wanted him.
This is hardly the act of someone who has been bona fides in his business dealings either with Whyte or with the SFA as the licensing body.
It is against this background that the Scottish Football Agencies need to wake up before they find the fans of the game ( at least those who want to stay interested in the game ) doing a Bismarck and panning in the windows of this whole house of cards.
Football Clubs, football fans, and indeed football itself needs protected from the financial and corporate shenanigans, and the governing body must be much more active and permanently vigilant in watching out for and if necessary anticipating the people and the transactions which have and will jeopardise clubs and the game in general going forward.
It is clearly no longer acceptable to rely on self regulation or mere declarations and undertakings from the clubs themselves. The Administrators must be much more active and employ far greater professional expertise in carrying out an almost constant analytical and reporting function in relation to club finance and corporate regulation.
All and any changes in funding, boardroom changes, investor changes and anything else major should be the subject of immediate and proper scrutiny by the SFA and there should be fair, immediate and stiff sanctions for non compliance, and any type of dilatory behaviour on the part of club officials who would seek to conceal the truth or who fail to properly disclose vital matters which should be out in the open.
Further, the funding detail– such as the never ending loan re Dunfermline should be a matter of public record in all its detail so that fans and investors can make information based value judgements when dealing with any club.
Such stiffer regulation should not develop into anything like a corporate witch hunt or any kind of draconian big brother syndrome, however the need for change given all of the current troubles is obvious to one and all.
Further, the attempted fudge surrounding Rangers league status last summer and the ongoing disquiet surrounding the position of Campbell Ogilvie does nothing to boost faith in and the reputation of Football Administration in Scotland.
Things are far from clear and there appears to be continual dithering and fudging. No one has any idea where the Nimmo Smith Report has gone nor what import it is to have— if any. Why is that?
Dithering and bumbling over detail is no longer an option. Strong clear governance is required to protect the game from being hijacked by those who have their own corporate and financial agendas.
Such people cannot be allowed to determine the way Scottish Football runs or to conduct themselves in a fashion that leaves football and everyone involved in limbo.
It is time for Scottish Football to find its own Iron Chancellor! There is a need for someone who will, if necessary, come along and shoot the lights out of any club or Company Director who wishes to play fast and loose with the game of football.
Suarez, new signing target for the zombies? 🙂
fistasapart says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:24
0 1 i
Rate This
Suarez, new signing target for the zombies?
= = = = =
Does he want a taste of Scottish Div 3?
texaspedro says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:13
You make a fair point, but it is moot. Outside of Mr Green’s fevered imagination there is no appetite to admit either Celtic or Rangers, or indeed any other Scottish team, into the English league system, and there are no credible signs of any sort of pan – European league set up in the offing.
We are where we are, which means in the short to medium term, Scottish Football’s problems are going to have to be solved within Scotland, god help us.
Massive indication on here that participants do NOT miss Old Firm derbies.
This does not surprise me.
It would be interesting to undertake a similar poll among TRFC fans exclusively,as well as a separate poll for Celtic fans.
I wonder what that would reveal?
texaspedro says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:13
That’s one position Pedro, and you certainly have a lot of people in the game and the fanbase of the Old Firm who would agree with you on those points.
Given that there is no prospect of Celtic or the Ibrox outfit leaving the Scottish league in the foreseeable future – are you happy for things to proceed as is?
rantinrobin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:38
I think it would “reveal” that Celtic fans’ opinion as expressed in Thumbs is very similar to that expressed on TSFM.
I don’t see what use such an assortment of polls could be put to.
Night Terror says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:42
—————–
I am not happy with it, but I cannot see it changing. What people are asking is for Celtic to give up more of its revenue, to allow other clubs to be competitive with them in the league – why would any business risk their future success to allow others to prosper? To encourage a better product maybe – but you can bet your bottom dollar if Celtic were getting beat my clubs of the soze of Motherwell and Utd the fans wouldn’t see it like that.
If I take it to the rediculous and assume that with Celtic giving up more money that somehow a club challenges and wins the league – costing Celtic a potential 10 – 20 mill jackpot in the champions league – that be pretty crazy eh?
So that thought above is rediculous – but if that is not the goal of giving more revenue to smaller teams from the top team, what is the goal? So they can compete for second? Cups? I don’t see the benefit really, if all it means is those clubs still spend as much as each other and end up in the same position as they are now.
texaspedro says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:13
0 0 Rate This
Taysider says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 11:38
——————–
It is not often I will find myself supporting Celtic in a discussion, but why should Celtic not look after number 1? Afterall, I have spent the last week defending St Mirren and Ross County for looking after number 1.
Celtic do not owe the other clubs a living – thats up to them. The real issue lies with the size of Celtic – they are too big for Scottish football in the current sitaution. As ar Rangers if they ever sort themselves out.
Scottish football will never be competitive in a league sense until Celtic and Rangers our out of Scotland. Until then, it could well be 10 in a row or more.
The other issue, is Celtic are in the same position as the “little” clubs in SPL, but in the context of Europe – for Celtic to even contemplate competing they have to maximise their revenue and maximise value for money in spending. Giving up more money does not assist that goal.
——————————————
tp, I think NTHM made the case closest to what I’d call for – ie for proper, fair redistribution of the SPL prize money and nothing else. I’d be happy with that for now myself and seems the fairest way.
I can’t agree with a couple of people’s suggestions that seem to suggest 1 rule for a big team and 1 rule for others (ie only Celtic splitting gates or whatever)
However what you say above doesn’t quite see the bigger picture IMO. As a fan of a smaller club I don’t want or expect Celtic to fund my club at all, but I equally don’t expect 2 large clubs to hoover up every penny they can at the expense of the all other clubs making up the league.
You can’t have a league with 1 team (or 2).
I’d also suggest that its the stranglehold on the finances that kept these 2 clubs at the top (or rather keeps them there so far ahead, year after year) so your argument that its the size of the clubs that is the problem is almost self perpetuating ie they are bigger because they have more money and they get more money because they are bigger.
As for the last point on European competition I think you fail to recognise other teams also qualify and struggle in Europe and could use greater funds for that just as well as Celtic. And as for a few hundred thousands or even 0.75 million a year making a significant impact on Celtic’s attempts to succeed in Europe I just don’t see it myself.
Celtic’s success or not in Europe is built ona much bigger budget, on the ability to identify good young players with potential and to develop these into good players and a good team. Something they are doing right now very well. Losing the sort of small change we are talking about here would not hold them back in this regard.
texaspedro says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:13
It is not often I will find myself supporting Celtic in a discussion, but why should Celtic not look after number 1?
—————
On one level I find there is something a bit Thatcherite for my taste about “looking after number 1” which could easily sit alongside there is no such thing as society and a Gordon Gekko greed is good approach. I appreciate that is a more philosophical point.
On a more practical level I see looking after number 1 as a bit short sighted. Where does it ultimately lead? Football is, as has been pointed out here before, inter-connected. Celtic do not exist in a vacuum but are defined for their fans, their customers, by the way they inter-act with other clubs, the game on the pitch. In the short term, winning the SPL ad nauseam might seem appealing but if it undermines the competition to a point where the outcome is pre determined just how much genuine excitement and entertainment value does the product hold? Also there is a high risk that if the other teams are so marginalised in the competition, then the quality of play may deteriorate as their fanbases are further eroded. As I suggested previously, winning the League risks becoming an ever “hollower” experience without the substance, the thrill, of being tested by genuine competitors who just could actually win instead.
The other side of the coin to the experience declining as competition erodes is the experience improving with a genuine element of competition. A league which more than one (or two) teams could win would surely lead to greater interest in the general public, for the tv customer and sponsors, meaning more overall income coming in and a bigger pie to slice, so that even with a reduced percentage, Celtic could end up gaining. What was a better, more entertaining product, the SPL now or the top flight of the 1980s?
Of course, if putting number one first is a perfectly valid and reasonable approach, the other 11 teams should just say here is the new allocation, we vote and we agree it. Why that hasn’t happened is a mystery but the current divisions within the “Group of 10” plus 1 would suggest that somewhere in the discussions Peter Lawell has played a blinder or managed to find some very compromising photos of someone 🙂 !
Interesting, but insignificant, the RIFC shares have been trading at around 63p today, on very small trades of a few hundred here and there. Someone places 25k shares and the price immediately drops 3p to 60p.
The “real” price if someone were to place a significant number of shares for sale would, I suspect, be a lot less than 60p.
miles and miles to go before we sleep.
The top club in the EPL gets in approximately 1.54 times as much cash as the bottom club. In the SPL it’s 3.78.
It’s fair enough that you get more money if you finish higher up the league, but the prize shouldn’t create such a huge gap. It serves no purpose. Celtic don’t even need the money, they could cut their playing budget in half and still be guaranteed the next 5 leagues.
What they need to compete in Europe is irrelevant to the argument unless they are willing to share that money. Representing Scotland in Europe is a privilege that they earn by winning the league. They have no right to expect any further help.
You have to speculate to accumulate. Look upon this as an investment in creating a more competitive league. Celtic will eventually more than make their money back when the TV people have to negotiate with a more competitive league.
vforvernacular says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:56
——————————————
tp, I think NTHM made the case closest to what I’d call for – ie for proper, fair redistribution of the SPL prize money and nothing else. I’d be happy with that for now myself and seems the fairest way.
I can’t agree with a couple of people’s suggestions that seem to suggest 1 rule for a big team and 1 rule for others (ie only Celtic splitting gates or whatever)
However what you say above doesn’t quite see the bigger picture IMO. As a fan of a smaller club I don’t want or expect Celtic to fund my club at all, but I equally don’t expect 2 large clubs to hoover up every penny they can at the expense of the all other clubs making up the league.
You can’t have a league with 1 team (or 2).
I’d also suggest that its the stranglehold on the finances that kept these 2 clubs at the top (or rather keeps them there so far ahead, year after year) so your argument that its the size of the clubs that is the problem is almost self perpetuating ie they are bigger because they have more money and they get more money because they are bigger.
As for the last point on European competition I think you fail to recognise other teams also qualify and struggle in Europe and could use greater funds for that just as well as Celtic. And as for a few hundred thousands or even 0.75 million a year making a significant impact on Celtic’s attempts to succeed in Europe I just don’t see it myself.
Celtic’s success or not in Europe is built ona much bigger budget, on the ability to identify good young players with potential and to develop these into good players and a good team. Something they are doing right now very well. Losing the sort of small change we are talking about here would not hold them back in this regard.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As well as a fairer distribution of SPL prize money, the 5% “admin fee” levied by Celtic on tickets sold for away games should be ended.
If we want the SPL to be competitive and not a one horse race we need to be radical in redistributing the games’s income. For me that means gate sharing (not necessarily 50/50). It worked before in the days when it operated.
Gate sharing would enable clubs to run with bigger squads with more depth to them and in doing that they can sustain a challenge. At the moment when one of the diddy teams loses a few key players to injury/suspension they usually have to throw in a youth player. Whereas Celtic wheel out another international.
theoldcourse says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:10
Robert Coyle says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:23
jimlarkin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:08
did they not set this company up, so that they could do the match day security and keep it
“in house”, therefor making a nice little earner on the side?
————————————————————-
I think so, don’t know if they got rid of the other security mob though.
————————————————————————————————————————
Is it not the case Robert that old contracts would have died with the liquidation of the old company.
Was that not the case with the Audi cars deal. That being the case then Sevco had no obligation to honour a contract with a separate, liquidated company.
They were free to negotiate their own contracts with whomever they liked.
Yet more proof that it is a new company….
——————————————————————————————————————-
nail and head
isn’t that how the JJB deal ceased and allowed the ashley deal to go ahead
fistasapart says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:24
Suarez, new signing target for the zombies? 🙂
…………………………………………………………………….
Apparently McCoist needs to add some bite to his attack. It’s been pretty toothless at times this season.
Nothing false about our Sally!
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath!
What about this scenario.
The group of teams just below Celtic get to enjoy a taste of second place cash and maybe a wee Europeran stint over the next few years. Their squads gradually increase in quality whilst they compete with each other for that coveted second place.
Now it is only the big ‘One’, the teams vying for second place realise they can gang up on Celtic and give them a hard game every other week, as they would strive to do currently obviously. Celtic suffer increased competition because the ‘second placers’ arent having 24 points deducted from their tally every season.
Just a thought.
IS this how investigations at Ibrokes will go regarding who owns what and who paid what and to whom ! This sketch from Laurel & Hardy sums it up. Clear as mud 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1_RGU_kxKg
RIFC are getting desperate.
If Sevco 5088 is now claimed as a subsidiary of RIFC PLC it can only be to claim “ownership” of the deal that Sevco 5088 had negotiated with Duff & Phelps.
This suggests that:
1. The D&P contract with Sevco 5088 is completely bulletproof.
2. The only possible avenue to secure RIFC’s ownership of the assets of the former Rangers Football Club is to establish that RIFC is the ultimate beneficial owner of Sevco 5088.
3. For Sevco Scotland to have picked up the contract with D&P it must have presented itself as the parent company of Sevco 5088.
This presents some major difficulties:
Sevco 5088 is already claimed as a subsidiary of another group (LFL Ltd).
Charles Green is on camera saying he “handed the company back” to Craig Whyte when the CVA was rejected.
The Rangers website still holds a statement saying that Charles Green resigned from Sevco 5088 at the time Sevco Scotland was created.
The Rangers website also quotes Charles green as saying:
““In a discussion with Mr Whyte, who taped some conversations, I am alleged to have said: ‘You are Sevco, that’s what we are saying.
“This is correct but at that point I had signed a resignation letter and a stock transfer form because it was decided that a Scottish company should buy a Scottish institution. Sevco 5088 wasn’t required.”
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/3683-charles-green-statement
Now if this last statement is true – that Charles Green resigned and transferred his Sevco 5088 shareholding prior to the deal with D&P being executed – it seems obvious to say that Sevco Scotland had no automatic right to act on behalf of Sevco 5088.
In these circumstances, it also seems obvious that Sevco 5088 cannot be a subsidiary of RIFC.
If Sevco 5088 are not a subsidiary of RIFC, the assets purportedly purchased from the former Rangers Football Club by Sevco Scotland are extremely vulnerable to legal challenge by the true owners of Sevco 5088.
For RIFC to claim 100% ownership of Sevco 5088, it must establish that it has a 100% shareholding in that company. It is not sufficient to claim only that their employee Charles Green once owned 100% of Sevco 5088. RIFC’s claim of ownership must include evidence that Charles Green was the ultimate beneficial owner of Sevco 5088 and title to his shareholding in Sevco 5088 was lawfully passed to Sevco Scotland.
Given his previous statements, I don’t see how that could be possible.
Too many people concentrating on Celtic’s playing budget and what they need to beat the other teams, has anyone considered that it is not just about beating teams, it is also about paying the customer back for the investment they make every week…
In other words: Entertaining them with good players, playing good football. The Celtic fans invest a lot of money into the club to see it come back in the form of good players; the last thing we want is for the fans to stop contributing because the product on offer is inferior.
I remember an old boss telling me something after I told her that her expectations of me in respect to having specific subject knowledge were too high, she replied “so you think I should lower my standards to your level? Or is it better that I push you to improve?” She was right, she gave me direction, opportunity to train and learn and I progressed.
What a lot of people want is for the Celtic board to say to the fans, can you continue pumping money into the club and in return we will downgrade the squad so we can give some of your money to the other clubs who are currently failing with their business plan.
Who would buy into that in the short term without a clear plan behind it?
There has to be a long term vision behind that strategy, the clubs that would be gaining should show how that extra money is going to improve the game in Scotland and not be wasted (for instance, having a good academy catering for all ages).
That has to be a 10 year plan and the trouble is that everyone is thinking only of the next season, in actual fact, most are thinking only of the current season.
But for me, there is no doubt in my mind where we could make an immediate start. TV revenue gained from SPL games should be split more equally between all teams competing in that competition.
Robert Coyle says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:23
7
0
Rate This
jimlarkin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 09:08
did they not set this company up, so that they could do the match day security and keep it
“in house”, therefor making a nice little earner on the side?
————————————————————-
I think so,don’t know if they got rid of the other security mob though.
———————————————————————————————–
Hi , The current security mob are G4S who have been getting phased out over the last 6 months with Garrion Security taking over the senior rolls first, then hospitality stewarding and finally the current G4S stwards have been asked to apply for a job with the new company for next season.
briggsbhoy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 14:36
IS this how investigations at Ibrokes will go regarding who owns what and who paid what and to whom ! This sketch from Laurel & Hardy sums it up.
Clear as mud
————————————————————————————————————————–
and remember the scene from “way out west”.
in the hotel, the owner [james finlayson] tells the barman,
[when the sales amount shows zero for every transaction]
“that till’s not working”
to which the barman replies
“it WORKS fine- FOR me” [a la sevco]
james finlayson – was apparently from falkirk
A curious tale concerning Craig Mather and the ‘Little Big Shot’
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/craig-mather-froths-over-rangers-job-guest-post-by-ecojon/#comments
No amount of deck-chair rearrangement is going to compensate for the disparity between the number of fans coming through the turnstiles at Celtic Park, Tannadice, New St M. Park etc.
To echo other posters, I don’t believe that anybody seriously expects Celtic or any other team with a large stadium to voluntarily close two stands at every home match in the vain hope that “smaller” clubs (i.e. those with smaller grounds) can catch up financially. Prize money – yes, there should be no more than 10-15% difference between top and bottom IMO. But do we also expect directors/owners at the recipient clubs to have a wage-cap placed on themselves as a condition of this change?
Gate receipts is the single biggest differentiator of revenue across Scottish football (look at any Deloitte report on footballing finances over the past 10 or so years and both Celtic and the now-dead-club often featured in the Euro top-20 in terms of revenues, based almost exclusively on getting bodies through the gates, not from juicy TV contracts or consistent European participation. Gate-sharing “worked”, in a far less commercialized world, when clubs played each other twice per season. Maybe there is a compromise to pro-rate gate receipts, based on visiting fans attendance, but if a club brings a few dozen fans why would any club be willing to provide a fixed percentage of the whole?
I note the reference to the 1980’s and wider/better competition (I remember it well and it was a very good decade but was also the beginning of the end of Scottish football via Murray/BoS) but that really was a completely different country in all respects – it’s gone and it is never coming back. There were much smaller average crowds at Celtic Park and Ibrox, no “Bosman”, active restrictions/quotas on foreign players, therefore more Scottish players, much less merchandising/commercialization of footballing activities and virtually no TV income. There was also a teachers’ strike which all but ended out-of-hours activities such as football and the coaching/training of future players. As an aside, I’d just scrap all Schools’ football completely and the archaic rules that govern it and build an all-through amateur-to-pro club model instead – seems to work ok elsewhere.
Nothing will change without a much more radical agenda than that which is being proposed by any of the clubs at the moment.
So from 6th June 2012*, what exactly was CG doing at RFC(IA)? Was he there as a Sevco 5088 representative doing the bidding of Whyte & Earley, as Sevco 5088 had paid for exclusivity, but was he also acting for Sevco Scotland, who had no such rights?
*4.21 From 6 June 2012, Charles Green will be appointed to assist in the day-to-day management of the business of the Company (at no cost to the Company or the Joint Administrators), in order to manage the ongoing trading costs of the Company and allow for a smooth transition in ownership.
If the SPL wish to organise a redistribution of the prize money for different places in the league then there is nothing to stop them doing it.
Someone simply has to put forward a proposal on how the money should be divided up, that can then be debated and voted upon.
No different from the re-structuring proposals. Some people thought they were a good idea, some thought they weren’t, a democratic process was followed and a decision made.
If the clubs think the way the prize money is split should be changed, then go ahead and change it. I don’t see how anyone could take issue with that.
jimlarkin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:08
He was as you say from Scotland and I’m sure it was the central belt. This whole Sevco thing is so much like that scene “I gave to him to give to you to give to him”.
Cant recall the Out West scene
briggsbhoy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 14:36
—————————–
Brilliant!
That one scene sums up a lot of what has been happening down Ibrox way and reminds me that I have not watched these guys for a while (L&H that is….I have never stopped watching the others…)
madbhoy24941 says:
Too many people concentrating on Celtic’s playing budget and what they need to beat the other teams, has anyone considered that it is not just about beating teams, it is also about paying the customer back for the investment they make every week…
……….
What a lot of people want is for the Celtic board to say to the fans, can you continue pumping money into the club and in return we will downgrade the squad so we can give some of your money to the other clubs who are currently failing with their business plan.
____________________________________________________________
Agree with this. Competitiveness in the Scottish game will not be achieved by a communist approach to revenues. Celtic are (and Rangers were) a bigger club with larger gates and greater revenues. None of that is a problem per se.
However, the problem comes when that dominant position is used to stifle competition through other means.
TV revenue is the perfect example of this. The OF for a long time took the lions share with the diddies getting scraps, with the scraps barely covering the lost revenue from the TV games always being their home matches versus one of the Old Firm. Since the SPL began I would wager that the other 10 Clubs between them have had net TV revenue close to zero due to the effect of the reduced home gates.
The prize money share is another one, although one which seems to have been recognised and many have commented on already. The proposed change to the distribution is still quite uneven compared to other leagues though.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:38
————————————-
Agreed!
Both Celtic and Rangers have in the past used their muscle and now is a perfect time for them to look forward, little changes for them are can mean large benefits for others.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:38
I may be wrong here but were Celtic not outvoted on the tv deal, and forced into a contract they wanted no part of? Didn’t they want to go with BSkyB, but were outvoted into the disastrous Setanta deal?
I just can’t get the movie “Dirty Rotten Scoundrels” out of my head.
As a PLC Celtic’s directors are duty bound to always act in best interests of shareholders. “Best interests” in my view is medium term, 3-5 years so status quo is not an option. There is clearly an argument therefore for fairer distribution to increase competition.
I propose that prize money given for final league positions in Scotland is determined by the company’s football related turnover. The greater your turnover the lower your cash payment. This increases the pot for those lower down the league. It would incentivise clubs to perform well within limited budgets.
If Celtic were feeling generous they could scrap the 5% agency fee (after all if these tickets are handled by existing salaried staff that would be paid anyway, additional costs are minimal). They could also increase the number of Celtic Park live televised matches so away game gates are not affected.
Other teams cannot expect Celtic to subsidise their existence (I dont believe they do). Celtic could quite easily treat the league as an easy meal ticket to CL, play a rotated squad through league games, concentrate on CL, throw in some glamour friendlies and stick two fingers up at everyone else (I dont believe they will).
A pan Euro league, a version of the old Atlantic league, not dissimilar to the growing Rabodirect league in pro rugby where Scottish, Welsh, Irish and Italian teams compete with Euro places at stake is not far away. UEFA has to see that 4 dominant leagues comprising up to 50% of all CL participants is going to get stale quite quickly.
The existing model for Scottish football is broken and this is mirrored in all but 4 leagues in Europe and even these are dominated by no more than 3 clubs in each.
Change must happen and happen across the entire continent for all to prosper.
bogsdollox says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 14:15
t the moment when one of the diddy teams loses a few key players to injury/suspension they usually have to throw in a youth player. Whereas Celtic wheel out another international.
———————————————–
So, what you are saying is, through lack of finances, the smaller teams are forced to encourage their youth program, rather than relying on an imported/higher paid/older player??
Sounds great.
ml3bhoy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 14:46
Hi , The current security mob are G4S who have been getting phased out over the last 6 months with Garrion Security taking over the senior rolls first, then hospitality stewarding and finally the current G4S stwards have been asked to apply for a job with the new company for next season.
—————————————————————————-
Thanks.Surprised though that the G4S guys are having to apply for their own job,if Garrion are taking over the contract which G4S appears to still have,would’nt T.U.P.E rules apply here,where unless G4S can find a place for them within their existing structure then Garrion are obligated to take on the employees.
jimlarkin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:08
james finlayson – was apparently from falkirk
___________
Very much off topic, but although Falkirk may try to claim James Finlayson, he was born at Larbert Cross.
“Bald-headed, handlebar-moustachioed actor, remembered for his “double take, followed by a slow burn,” who was often Stan and Ollie’s foil in Laurel & Hardy shorts and feature films for more than a decade through 1940. Considered by many to be an essential component in any good Laurel & Hardy movie, Finlayson’s legendary ‘staccato’ style mannerisms and crazed squints have made him an icon in Laurel and Hardy cinema history. He appeared in 33 such films, his best reckoned to have been as Mr Peter Cucumber in ‘Me & My Pal’, Mickey Finn in ‘Way out West’, and The Brides Father in ‘Our Wife’.
Many think of his bushy moustache as a trademark, but in fact it was only a prop. In many of the films he made outside of Roach Studios he appeared clean shaven. Also, although today he is frequently known simply as “Fin,” it is doubtful he ever heard that nickname in his life. He preferred to be called “Jim.”
Any written comments on the great man’s abilities cannot do him justice, and some feel a lasting memorial should be built in the area around Larbert Cross, close to his birthplace.
A final tribute here, and a note of trivia:
Dan Castellaneta, the voice of Homer Simpson, has said that Homer’s “D’oh!” was inspired by James Finlayson’s use of the same exclamation. ”
http://larbertviews.net23.net/index_files/Page480.htm
Timely piece in the Economist
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2013/04/corruption-sport-0?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/marketdrivenmorality
Much as I’d like the 80s back – as I had more hair and a smaller waistline – it’s not really what I was getting at in my earlier posts.
In the 70s and 80s the OF had just as much more of a financial advantage through attendences (until Rangers fans disappeared like sna’ aff a dyke in the Grieg years) as they do now. They also had the same pull of being a bigger club with the better chance of winning silverware and their “tradition”. That’s all the same as it ever was.
One of the big changes has been the ability of the big clubs to do over the smaller clubs in relation to their star players. I don’t think the big clubs realise just how damaging this is. I’m not really talking about the players that move to become key players and decent money is paid e.g. like, say, Scott Brown or Charlie Mulgrew, etc. The smaller clubs realise that this is part of the normal circle of life and always has been. The damaging piece is the players that are taken to be bit part players in large squads that would otherwise be important first team players elsewhere e.g. Alan Gow, Kenny Miller, Derek Riordan, etc.
Unfortunately the game has changed and there’s no way a player like Willie Miller would have stayed at Aberdeen for 20 seasons if he was playing in todays climate. As he was approaching first contract renewal after establishing himself the Daily Record campaign to destabilise him would have begun in earnest to make clear that (in this example) Rangers wanted to sign him; contract negotiations would begin through the Record’s back pages, etc and his wages would be doubled/tripled to lure him away whilst Aberdeen are browbeaten into accepting £250k for him whilst being reminded how grateful they should be for the income provided. He would then have been signed and spent the next 3 years getting a grand total of 10 appearances behind first choice Tam Forsyth. Aberdeen revert to Doug Considine or Willie Garner and don’t win the league.
A great deal is spoken on this site about “the good of Scottish football” but sometimes the best questions are the dumbest ones so it’s important to establish what we mean when we say “Scottish football”.
It could means all kinds of things to all kinds of people: encouraging boys and girls to play in safe, supervised surroundings because sport is good and football is a great game; or it could be the wellbeing of the full-time professional clubs in this country; or the senior league structure; or the ability, up until recently, of the two big Glasgow clubs to have a crack at the group stages of the Champions League; the decline in the national team since it last reached the finals stage of a tournament, 15 years ago; or whatever. Create your own definition.
It’s clear that one of the reasons contributors to this site disagree with each other is that we all have different things in mind when talking about “Scottish football”. Stepping back and asking what it *should* mean and what we *should* do about that is not the same as a talking about how much SPL prize money Celtic get, whether the SPL is competitive, how can second tier clubs survive as full-time outfits or whether locally run clubs for kids can actually afford to hire pitches these days.
Another difficulty is how much Scotland has changed in our lifetimes and continues to change. Car ownership has shot up, road traffic is heavier, worries about children’s safety have come to the fore, a large part of the old working class has been ‘middle-classified’ via home ownership while another large part has been entirely disenfranchised as an underclass. Multiple TV channels have arrived, Sky has been shovelling cash at English football for more than 20 years, there are Champions League games on television two nights a week for a big chunk of the season, Scotland has moved even further away from heavy industry to a service economy, there are more leisure options, mobile phones and games consoles – and football has got a lot more expensive. (Hibs v Aberdeen this evening, £20. Going to see Iron Man 3 3D at the local cinema – warm, indoors and 130 minutes long rather than the 90 minutes you get at Easter Road – £11.40.)
I just thought it was important to throw this in because otherwise we’re going to continue to talk at cross purposes.
Go back to France ’98 and nine players started all three games for Craig Brown. One was Jim Leighton, already pushing 40 at the time, but the other eight were born between 1965 and 1973 (Boyd, Hendry, Burley, Lambert, Collins, Dailly, Durie, Gallacher). Those players represented the tail end of “old Scotland” but that country has gone. What we can be absolutely certain about however is that solving the problems of a small number of professional football clubs in isolation won’t fix the state of the sport – and if football continues to decline as the activity of choice for Scottish kids, then one day the professional game will die.
This isn’t a peculiarly Scottish problem – the English Premier League may be marketed as the most exciting in the world for instance but a significant part of its appeal relies on imported talent. Liverpool’s starting XI yesterday had only five English players; Chelsea’s XI had none at all. Take the money away, take the foreign players away, and you still have some have pretty useful guys for the England team – but that team has managed to reach the semi finals of only one major tournament in the Premier League era, in ten attempts, counting from the 1994 World Cup. England’s demographic and sociological changes are pretty similar to ours – they just have a larger critical mass of talent to call upon, but it won’t last forever either.
willmacufree says:
zerotolerance1903 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:38
I may be wrong here but were Celtic not outvoted on the tv deal, and forced into a contract they wanted no part of? Didn’t they want to go with BSkyB, but were outvoted into the disastrous Setanta deal?
_______________________________________________
IIRC the Old Firm + Aberdeen wanted a Sky deal and the rest wanted Setanta. History shows this to have been a poor decision but that is a seperate issue from how and where the matches are scheduled and how the revenue shared.
willmacufree says:
zerotolerance1903 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:38
I may be wrong here but were Celtic not outvoted on the tv deal, and forced into a contract they wanted no part of? Didn’t they want to go with BSkyB, but were outvoted into the disastrous Setanta deal?
_______________________________________________
IIRC the Old Firm + Aberdeen wanted a Sky deal and the rest wanted Setanta. History shows this to have been a poor decision but that is a seperate issue from how and where the matches are scheduled and how the revenue shared.
—————————————————————————————————————–
Agree ZT. Let’s also remember the exponential wage inflation that had poisoned the market, and clubs were tyring desperately to keep pace with Rangers, Hearts, Dundee, Livingston, Gretna, Dunfermline…………;)
hangerhead says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:52
bogsdollox says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 14:15
t the moment when one of the diddy teams loses a few key players to injury/suspension they usually have to throw in a youth player. Whereas Celtic wheel out another international.
———————————————–
So, what you are saying is, through lack of finances, the smaller teams are forced to encourage their youth program, rather than relying on an imported/higher paid/older player??
Sounds great.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not saying that. With more money the smaller clubs could develop even more youth, mixed with additional key experienced signings. There is a model for it already. It’s at Celtic.
Oh I remember the wage inflation very well. Aberdeen were almost ruined (and permanently crippled it appears) by trying to keep up with Rangers with all those second places in the 9 in a row years. Were we one of the first casualties of the financial doping down Govan way?
To be clear, I don’t blame David Murray for the entirety of AFCs plight sown in the late 80s to mid 90s. The twin bastions of incompetent stewardship that are Ian Donald and Stewart Milne have a lot to answer for as well.
willmacufree says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:44
10 0 Rate This
zerotolerance1903 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:38
I may be wrong here but were Celtic not outvoted on the tv deal, and forced into a contract they wanted no part of? Didn’t they want to go with BSkyB, but were outvoted into the disastrous Setanta deal?
——————————-
You are correct. Aberdeen also voted against the Setanta deal.
When and how did sevco5088 become a subsiduary of Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC Ltd) given that Sevco 5088 was created before Sevco Scotland Ltd?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:47
When and how did sevco5088 become a subsiduary of Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC Ltd) given that Sevco 5088 was created before Sevco Scotland Ltd?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It didn’t and as far as I am aware it’s a subsidiary of another AIM listed company.
Does anyone have details of the current SPL prize money deal/split
also, same for the proposed 12-12-18 deal?
thanks
bogsdollox says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:50
2 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:47
When and how did sevco5088 become a subsiduary of Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC Ltd) given that Sevco 5088 was created before Sevco Scotland Ltd?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It didn’t and as far as I am aware it’s a subsidiary of another AIM listed company.
——————————————-
and prior to last week – did we have details of how that came about?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:52
bogsdollox says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:50
2 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:47
When and how did sevco5088 become a subsiduary of Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC Ltd) given that Sevco 5088 was created before Sevco Scotland Ltd?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It didn’t and as far as I am aware it’s a subsidiary of another AIM listed company.
——————————————-
and prior to last week – did we have details of how that came about?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I sense an unexplained level of distrust in your posts. Stop worrying it will all be explained in the end (whenever that is)
bogsdollox says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:37
I’m not saying that. With more money the smaller clubs could develop even more youth, mixed with additional key experienced signings. There is a model for it already. It’s at Celtic.
——————————–
I get that of course, but another part of the problem is the requirement for the quick and immediate return.
There isn’t always a lot of real development that I can see and yes, we (at Celtic) have a number of players coming through but when are they given the chance to actually develop in the senior team?
James Forrest is the only one this season and really, counts as last season’s development.
Dylan McGeough had a few matches but really, the rest of the squad are ‘bought’ players. We are paying other teams for their players’ development. Until such time as we truly bring through a number of youth players who would walk into our senior team, then we are not really developing them.
We are buying partly (or fully) developed senior players who’ve already been given the chances at higher levels (Kayal, Matthews, Wanyama, Hooper, Lustig)…this converyor belt of talent appears to be a bit of myth.
If we get senior players in this season from the Scottish leagues, they will have truly been developed at their teams.
We wait until the league is won, not actually trusting in our own youth players to do a job for us. So now, campaign over, some senior players being sent on holiday and perhaps we will ‘blood’ our youth players…until we buy another one who plays their position.
Wow – what faith!
Is Tony Watt better than Hooper? Has he done anything for Celtic since being blooded/playing against Barcelona…or is he another David Marshall.
We identify the players, certainly – but where’s the actual development?
Dundee United will get more money for home based players than us.
That’s wrong.
HIbs have done so in the past.
They have to do so, to continue to develop and take a chance because they have no option, not having the finances to to compete ‘internationally’ as Celtic do.
Additionally, this season i particular, with no ‘real’ risk of not winning the league, we should have been witness to a far greater percentage of youth players during league games.
What does it tell them if we don’t play them for fear the match/league is lost…where do they develop their own sense of motivation or worth to the team if the management don’t trust them to do a job?
nextgen series aside of course.
With the Moscow and Dubai cups having been successfully competed in, do you believe we will se even 25% of those players in our future teams?
i don’t!
Surely for a company to be a subsidiary of another, then that other company has to hold it’s shares, or at least the majority of them.
Sevco 5088 seems to have been owned by either Green, Whyte, Earley and / or others. I have never seen a suggestion that it was actually owned by a holding company.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:59
Surely for a company to be a subsidiary of another, then that other company has to hold it’s shares, or at least the majority of them.
Sevco 5088 seems to have been owned by either Green, Whyte, Earley and / or others. I have never seen a suggestion that it was actually owned by a holding company.
========================================================
Maybe Green gifted his shares to RIFC but that still wouldn’t explain the shenanigans wrt the club purchase.
Also,should Sevco 5088 not have been listed in the IPO document as an asset of RIFC?,
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 17:05
==========================
If I remember right Sevco (Scotland) changed it’s name to RIFC.
So is the claim that Sevco 5088 was a subsidiary of Sevco (Scotland), if so since when. If not then at which point did it become a subsidiary of the renamed company.
The whole subsidiary thing seems very dubious.
Night Terror says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:45
1 8 Rate This
rantinrobin says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 13:38
It would be interesting to undertake a similar poll among TRFC fans exclusively,as well as a separate poll for Celtic fans.
I wonder what that would reveal?
I think it would “reveal” that Celtic fans’ opinion as expressed in Thumbs is very similar to that expressed on TSFM.
I don’t see what use such an assortment of polls could be put to.
———————————————————————————————————————-
I am sorry that you don’t get my line of argument NT.I would have thought ,to most,it was patently obvious.
If this forum ,a monitor, allows people an insight into the attitudes of football fans then such a poll would be revealing.As to why you chose to put my choice of word reveal into inverted commas is again beyond me.
I do however share the view that Celtic fans would show far less desire for the old firm games as they do not ,in my experience,have supremacist leanings.
It strikes me NT that you have not grasped the notion that forums such as these only work if people enter the spirit of debate.There is no need for an adversarial approach which seeks to put an instant mocker on any thoughts contributors may have.You will also note that your view received the appropriate put down through the use of thumbs.
I might suggest also that many decent TRFC fans have no real need of the tribal desire to get one over on the opposition.At the time of the game,on both sides, fans might get a massive adrenalin rush but ,on reflection,it is not a good feeling for anyone.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: Monday, April 22, 2013 at 16:51
Does anyone have details of the current SPL prize money deal/split
also, same for the proposed 12-12-18 deal?
=================================
SPL (based on a £16M pot)
1 17.00% £2,720,000
2 15.00% £2,400,000
3 9.50% £1,520,000
4 8.50% £1,360,000
5 8.00% £1,280,000
6 7.50% £1,200,000
7 7.00% £1,120,000
8 6.50% £1,040,000
9 6.00% £960,000
10 5.50% £880,000
11 5.00% £800,000
12 4.50% £720,000
Proposed Deal
Premiership—————— % of total % of div
1 £2,405,000 (-£315,000) 13.4% 16.4%
2 £1,718,000 (-£682,000) 9.6% 11.7%
3 £1,460,000 (-£60,000) 8.1% 9.9%
4 £1,289,000 (-£71,000) 7.2% 8.8%
5 £1,203,000 (-£77,000) 6.7% 8.2%
6 £1,117,000 (-£83,000) 6.2% 7.6%
7 £1,057,000 (-£63,000) 5.9% 7.2%
8 £1,005,000 (-£35,000) 5.6% 6.8%
9 £988,000 (+£28,000) 5.5% 6.7%
10 £902,000 (+£22,000) 5.0% 6.1%
11 £816,000 (+£16,000) 4.5% 5.6%
12 £730,000 (+£10,000) 4.1% 5.0%
——————————— 81.8% 100.0%
Championship
13 £387,000 (+£319,000) 2.2% 15.5%
14 £344,000 (+£277,000) 1.9% 13.8%
15 £301,000 (+£235,000) 1.7% 12.1%
16 £258,000 (+£193,000) 1.4% 10.3%
17 £241,000 (+£177,000) 1.3% 9.7%
18 £189,000 (+£121,000) 1.1% 7.6%
19 £172,000 (+£111,000) 1.0% 6.9%
20 £155,000 (+£95,000) 0.9% 6.2%
21 £137,000 (+£78,000) 0.8% 5.5%
22 £120,000 (+£63,000) 0.7% 4.8%
23 £103,000 (+£47,000) 0.6% 4.1%
24 £86,000 (+£31,000) 0.5% 3.4%
———————————- 13.9% 100.0%
National League
25 £54,000 0.30% 6.90%
26 £53,000 0.30% 6.77%
27 £51,000 0.28% 6.51%
28 £50,000 0.28% 6.39%
29 £49,000 0.27% 6.26%
30 £48,000 0.27% 6.13%
31 £47,000 0.26% 6.00%
32 £45,000 0.25% 5.75%
33 £44,000 0.24% 5.62%
34 £43,000 0.24% 5.49%
35 £42,000 0.23% 5.36%
36 £40,000 0.22% 5.11%
37 £39,000 0.22% 4.98%
38 £38,000 0.21% 4.85%
39 £37,000 0.21% 4.73%
40 £36,000 0.20% 4.60%
41 £34,000 0.19% 4.34%
42 £33,000 0.18% 4.21%
—————- 4.36% 100.00%
There is currently a one year deal in place for the SPL which means that 1st still gets 17%, 2nd 10.5%, 3rd 9.5% and 4th-12th an extra 0.5%. This will revert to the previous arrangements for next season, unless the clubs vote differently (11-1).
madbhoy24941 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:37
It was one of those classic L&H scenes I’ve had in my mind since I was a kid, I have two L&H movies, one in 8mm B&W film and the other on DVD. My heid was wasted with these comic geniuses every Saturday morning as a kid, Abbot & Costello, L&H, Bob & Bing, The Marx Brothers. Someone posted the link to one of my favourites, Danny Kaye in the Court Jester over the weekend. The other one I love is the Bob Hope one where he plays the sheriff and he has to go for a gun fight and as he’s leaving the Saloon he’s given all sorts of conflicting advice. Brings tears tae my eyes thinking about it, must hunt it on You tube.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 15:28
13 1 Rate This
If the SPL wish to organise a redistribution of the prize money for different places in the league then there is nothing to stop them doing it.
Someone simply has to put forward a proposal on how the money should be divided up, that can then be debated and voted upon.
No different from the re-structuring proposals. Some people thought they were a good idea, some thought they weren’t, a democratic process was followed and a decision made.
If the clubs think the way the prize money is split should be changed, then go ahead and change it. I don’t see how anyone could take issue with that.
——————————————————————————————————————-
Hello Chip,
Plenty of people take issue with that. Especially some semi-offical celtic-minded bloggers who like to refer to the democratic majority as a gang and to communal revenue as our money .
Prime example found in 3.4secs ; http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8195
A lot of Celtic fans don’t even support the removal of 11-1, I can’t imagine they’ll be jumping through their hoops to give away more of their money.
From
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/rangers-confirm-sevco-5088-is-subsidiary-of-rangers-plc-how-long-is-without-delay/
Can someone have a look at the posts by newtz. Very interesting if all true.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/rangers-confirm-sevco-5088-is-subsidiary-of-rangers-plc-how-long-is-without-delay/
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 17:11
If I remember right Sevco (Scotland) changed it’s name to RIFC.
===================
I don’t think that’s right. RIFC PLC was incorporated on 9/11/2012. It acquired 100% of the shares in TRFC Ltd through a share exchange as part of the AIM listing and IPO. TRFC Ltd was previously called Sevco Scotland Ltd, the name was changed on or around 31 July 2012- http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/162959.html#
neepheid says:
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 17:11
If I remember right Sevco (Scotland) changed it’s name to RIFC.
===================
I don’t think that’s right. RIFC PLC was incorporated on 9/11/2012. It acquired 100% of the shares in TRFC Ltd through a share exchange as part of the AIM listing and IPO. TRFC Ltd was previously called Sevco Scotland Ltd, the name was changed on or around 31 July 2012- http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/162959.html#
___________________________________________________
Was asking the same question on Paul’s blog.
Having looked into myself I think Sevco Scotland changed its name to RIFC Ltd and the new RIFC Plc became its parent.
The CE says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 17:43
==============================
The way I see it is simple.
There is a democratic process, and so long as that is followed, everyone has their say and everyone is subject to the same rules then there is no issue.
If the SPL clubs decide that money earned by the clubs (for example through the collective bargaining of media rights) should be split differently than it is just now then that’s fine. If the vote was to split it 12 ways, irrespective of league position and that was voted through then that is fair enough.
The paragraph below is taken directly from The RIFC Plc IPO prospectus. It is on page 67 section 28, and is the only time the word Sevco appears in the entire document.
It makes clear that Sevco 5088 is owned by Charles Green, as sole shareholder, and therefore at May 29 2012 cannot be a subsidiary company of RIFC ( the plc parent co) or RFCL( the operating company which runs the football club )
There has been no public announcement of a subsequent acquisition, and indeed there was no mention in the Prospectus of Sevco 5088 being a subsidiary, or of Charles Green being a director of Sevco 5088
The subsequent filings today are explained in detail and in my view accurately by Hirsute Pursuit.
I agree with his description. RIFC are becoming desperate
——————
The following balances were novated from Sevco 5088 Limited (a company of which Charles Green was the sole shareholder and hence a related party) on 29 May 2012 to RFCL, hence the dates are before incorporation of RFCL:
• On 11 May 2012, Imran Ahmad, a director of RFCL, provided a loan of £200,000. £178,000 was repaid on 15 August 2012 and £22,000 was converted into ordinary share capital of RFCL. Imran Ahmad also received an arrangement fee of £50,000 relating to this loan.
• On 21 May 2012, Charles Green, a Director of RFCL provided a loan of £25,000. No interest accrued on this balance and this was repaid on 15 August 2012
I fully agree with you Chip, I’m just suggesting that there is a strong element present that does not, and they seems keen on promoting discord over this issue(and others) and the ‘gang of ten’ incident is a prime example of this.
Sorry this probably a stupid question, but how can Sevco 5088 be a subsidiary of RIFC if they were incorporated before them?
Thanks in advance.
zerotolerance1903 says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 18:00
Was asking the same question on Paul’s blog.
Having looked into myself I think Sevco Scotland changed its name to RIFC Ltd and the new RIFC Plc became its parent.
+++++++
The only relevant company I am aware of with “international” in its name is Rangers Football Club International PLC (RIFC) incorporated on 9/11/2012. All the links I can find indicate that Sevco Scotland changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Ltd (TRFC), around 31/7/2012. I am pretty sure that the Companies House forms regarding that name change have been posted here before. If I can find the post, I’ll link it later.
The CE says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 18:13
0 0 Rate This
Sorry this probably a stupid question, but how can Sevco 5088 be a subsidiary of RIFC if they were incorporated before them?
Thanks in advance.
——————–
It’s not relevant . Google could buy IBM despite being incorporated 50 years later
The CE says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 18:13
Sorry this probably a stupid question, but how can Sevco 5088 be a subsidiary of RIFC if they were incorporated before them?
Thanks in advance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Through acquisition, in exactly the same way that RFC Ltd is a subsidiary of RIFC plc
barcabhoy says:
Monday, April 22, 2013 at 18:20
0 0 Rate This
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🙁 You’re too quick. I even refreshed before I posted! 🙂
There have been a few comments about Sevco being unable to be a subsidiary of another entity if it was incorporated first, to answer to that point – that is completely possible. The ‘age’ or date of incorporation of a company bears no significance as to ownership or corporate structure. Put it simply I could form a company today and buy all shares or merge with another 200 yr old company and have it as a subsidiary. Mergers and acquisitions do this kind of thing all the time.
oops the f5 key is your friend – sorry for the excess post 🙂
Here’s a another link regarding the Sevco Scotland name change-
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/31/the-name-sevco-scotland-ltd-is-consigned-to-the-history-books-welcome-the-rangers-football-club-ltd/
which includes a picture of the official notification.
Apologies for the typo in my last post at 18:15- I meant Rangers International Football Club PLC. All so confusing! Maybe it’s meant to be???
the talk of the old pictures made me think of this : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RviRADnyFPs Marx brothers and the Sevco ownership documentation – sorry if OT 🙂
Are the mysterious Orlit about to wander back on to the stage?
“alex thomson @alextomo 1m
Rangers: Sources close to Orlit confirm “the matter has not been settled” and …”
alex thomson @alextomo 1m
Rangers: Sources close to Orlit confirm “the matter has not been settled” and …
alex thomson @alextomo 50s
“Orlit continues to monitor closely recent developments at Rangers whilst reserving its position at this time.”
alex thomson @alextomo 31s
“Orlit continues to monitor closely recent developments at Rangers whilst reserving its position at this time.”
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
alex thomson @alextomo 1m
Rangers: Sources close to Orlit confirm “the matter has not been settled” and …
========================================================================
Alex is still with the story!