Leaving aside for the moment the Shadenfreude-laden giggling as first Celtic, and then Rangers departed the Champions League this season, it is worthwhile taking time to think on the reality of Scotland’s latter-day bit-part status in the game.
There are Celtic fans who try to rationalise it by pointing out that for them, the Stein years were a wonderful exception and not the norm. That however does not explain the European status of Rangers, Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs, Dundee, Dundee United, Kilmarnock and Dunfermline in a period of roughly a quarter of a century from the beginning of European competition.
From the fifties to the eighties, Scottish clubs were feared and respected in Europe. Since then, only Martin O’Neil’s Celtic and Walter Smith’s Rangers have made an impression on the European scene.
So what has happened? Many blame the distraction of new technology, taking potential Johnstones and Baxters away from pursuing the soccer dream. I’m not convinced of that myself. They have game consoles and PCs in England and Italy and Germany as well. They also have them in Scandinavian countries where daylight hours and suitable weather are in even less abundance than in Scotland – and of course clubs from Scandinavian countries were both responsible for Celtic and Rangers fates this season.
Failure then breeds failure. Losing out one year means more (and earlier) qualifiers down the line. In this regard, you have to wonder at the claims of how “brilliantly” Celtic have been run over the last decade, when the club went into Euro qualifiers again and again unprepared in terms of personnel, even to the extent of using makeshift central defenders in several campaigns. Our clubs know its all coming, but year on year, we get caught on the hop by the timing of those early ties. Planning? Don’t make me laugh.
We are also faced with the reality that fans of clubs who are not in contention for a ECL group place, are usually fervently hoping that the quest ends in failure. Not because there is a deep hatred of either or both Celtic and Rangers, but because a Champions League place for a Scottish team gives the successful side an immeasurable financial advantage over the rest. Of course that attitude is understandable when you look at the reality for our clubs if one of their number makes it to the group stages.
Scottish football clubs rely heavily on gate income for survival because their media deals struck with broadcasters are so much poorer than in countries of similar size. ECL money – even if the successful side fails to score a goal or get a point on the board – is like all your Christmasses have come at once.
It is well known that the income gap between Celtic & Rangers and the rest is huge. The income gap between a Scottish Champions League team and the rest is even more massive. Yet if a Dutch, or Portuguese or Danish or Swedish side get a place in the group stages, the impact is not so great. Why? Because they have football administrators who can sell the game effectively, getting value for their product from the media.
This is the one area where our administrators have failed consistently and miserably.
The current football model where home teams keep their own gate money, and in some cases even have their own media contracts, is designed to (with the notable exception of England) create a few bigger fishes in a number of smaller ponds. It ultimately ends with the pantomime (which has not yet gone away) of the European Super League.
I wish I could say I had a solution to all this, but my instinct is to say that in the absence of a solution we should forget about Europe and its riches. Instead, lets return to a sport driven model of the game where there is a more equitable share of revenues. Forget the tuppence ha’penny TV contracts and give football back to the fans, live on a Saturday (Covid permitting). In time, the level of competition would increase, as would the quality of the product. The talk to the TV folk when they want to pay the going rate.
It might help if there was some kind of levy (listening indy supporters?) imposed on subscription service providers like Sky. £25m versus £1.5 billion is a much smaller fraction than that of Scottish subscribers to the Sky platform for example.
There is little we in Scotland can do to prevent the globalisation and Mafia-isation of the game internationally, but those things we CAN control, like turning inward to improve our game instead of, like Stella Dallas in the eponymous classic movie, standing in the rain looking through the window at the banquet elsewhere.
Of course it won’t happen.
Malmo were the catalyst for the disintegration of rangers (mark 1)
and now, £30m (minus whatever they make in the Europa Thing) down, which, knowing them they have budgeted for, could Malmo be the catalyst for the disintegration of mark 2.
Discuss
HS
Higgy’s Shoes 10th August 2021 At 23:28
‘..could Malmo be the catalyst for the disintegration of mark 2.’
%%%%%%%
Come now, sir, I beseech you: be careful of your language! (in humour]
TRFC is not any continuation , any ‘mark 2’ modification of a pre-existent body!
No, it was/is a new creation, illegitimately sired by a rotten ‘football governance ‘ body of which every one of the then and subsequent members deserves nothing but contempt for their cowardice and dereliction of duty.
I cry in despair: let the truth be told. Just let the actual truth, pure and simple, be acknowledged
And then we can all get on.
Ah well…….That’s Volvo and Saab added tae the conflict of interests list.
JC
mark 1 – mark 2
I wasn’t implying any continuation
just couldn’t come up with anything else at this time of night to describe a difference.
Lazy?… guilty
But my point is still cogent…for those in the financial know…what kind of hole is this going to create.
HS
Corrupt Official 11th Agust 2021–00.10
Can we add meatballs to that list along with lovely blonde swedish girls
‘Rangers’ were shedding millions every year even with Europa League money. Achieving the Champions League cash pot would have eliminated that need. It will be interesting to see what happens now. The final cog in the chain of throwing money at them has come off. Karma for those in the media who think that a football club being run within its means is something to be mocked, not admired.
Upthehoops 11th August 2021 At 10:12
1 0 Rate This
‘Rangers’ were shedding millions every year even with Europa League money. Achieving the Champions League cash pot would have eliminated that need. It will be interesting to see what happens now.
Dunno what happens now UTH, but there are bound to be several “Investors” who said, “Gimme a phone on Wednesday”, not taking any calls today.
Upthehoops 11th August 10.12.
It will be similar to the model Celtic have successfully adopted in recent years.
Stewart Robertson at Rangers last agm.
“We know that in time a key part of our business model means that we have to facilitate an increase in income by trading players,” he said. “We have to really focus on that over the next 12 months. We know for the business model of the club we need to start moving one or two players a year.”
Once again puts last nights disappointing result into perspective.
Kemar Roofe sends heartfelt thanks to hospital staff after his son is treated for chest infection
RANGERS striker Kemar Roofe has sent a heartfelt message of thanks to NHS staff at one Glasgow hospital after his newborn son was treated for a chest infection.
The Gers star posted an update about newborn Cassius’s current health situation on Instagram, telling followers that his young son had been suffering from bronchiolitis and a chest infection.
Cassius had been admitted to The Royal Hospital for Children, located beside the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Govan, to be treated.
Kemar withdrew from the game between Rangers and Dundee United last weekend, with the club telling supporters on social media that his young child had been admitted to hospital.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CSZpz1YA216/?utm_source=ig_embed
Kemar sent his thanks to the staff on Ward 2C who helped to get Cassius back to full health after a five-night stay in the Govan Hospital.
He said: “Thank you for all the messages wishing my striker a speedy recovery from bronchiolitis and a chest infection.
“Five tough nights at Royal Hospital for Children but the nurses and doctors on ward 2c were amazing.”
BP
Your final sentence says it all really.
The lack of vision from the clubs happy to continue with the status quo, allied to those entrusted in driving the sport forward lacking the skillset or wherewithal to do so will remain in place for the foreseeable future.
The dearth of anything remotely innovative is both depressing and predictable at the same time.
As an example, the subject of summer football usually raises it’s head at this time in the season, usually after the majority of our clubs are eliminated from European competition before the schools return. The benefits for this, imo, vastly outweigh any negatives but sadly we will never know how successful or otherwise this may be.
Having looked back at previous blogs i realise that Gordon Smith is not the most popular person in the eyes of many but his vision on how the game could improve gave me some hope, at least for a short time but alas to no avail.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/gordon-smith-resignation-archaic-sfa-no-place-anyone-vision-2459341
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58179312
On the subject of this blog I would suggest the introduction of the Bosnian rule was a major factor in our decline
This allowed a certain club to offer a plethora of English stars to come across the border and begin a ‘arms race’ between the clubs with only the Old Firm able to sustain it and many others nearly going to the wall trying to keep up. Also their buying up of budding Scottish players to have them sitting on the bench to the detriment of their careers and the Scottish game
This created the duopoly of nine in a rows which strangled the game. In addition this gave these teams more power and influence regarding distribution of monies, and more importantly for one of the clubs excessive influence in both the SFA and also Refereering. Which still exists to this day. No more ‘governing clubs without fear or favor’
It is no coincidence that our national teams performance has also dropped as a result
No one is going to sponsor the Scottish game seriously when it obvious to a blind man that the game here is bent both in governance and refereering
Finally what both teams have failed to realise is that lack of proper competition, meaning that you can’t expect to win everything every year, makes their teams weaker. As you are not being pushed hard then when it comes to Europe they get a surprise that even minnow teams give them tough game
My tuppenceworth –
summer football (one of the reasons the Skandis can sell their product at a premium)
grass pitches in the top two divisions
less emphasis on physique and more on basic ball skills and technique
more equitable distribution of monies
maximise the size of the pitches – get the players fitter and more mobile
professional referees , with open recruitment
Government to restart football in schools , providing personnel and finance
I know that there are lots of plastic pitches in Scandinavia , but I’m thinking about my experience of our football .
Albertz11 11th August 2021 At 19:12
‘..The dearth of anything remotely innovative..’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Can I first say that I am not disagreeing with the general thrust of your post when I say that not all ‘innovative’ ideas are necessarily good ideas.
Possibly the most damaging ‘innovation’ in Scottish football was the abandonment of ‘gate-sharing’.
The subject was raised on this blog some time ago, I remember, but I don’t think there was ever any post from anyone who had particular knowledge of how and why that innovation came about and was accepted?
I myself haven’t a scooby as to why that idea was ever accepted.
Was it ever explained, by whichever governance body had the power to introduce the notion, why the home club should keep all the gate money?
Was it ever explained why the clubs accepted the notion?
I hope there may be some poster who can provide some historical analysis.
More emphasis needs to be put on home grown players coming through the youth systems rather than the lazy option of writing a cheque . If the SFA want a strong National side then they have to invest in the roots of the game . I would suggest a bonus to clubs who play players who are eligible to play for Scotland , I realise that for some clubs the cash wouldn’t be enough to tempt them to change their ways but lower league teams in particular could benefit .
I’m certainly not advocating a closed shop for non Scots players as many have been a massive boost but to see clubs with just 2 or 3 Scots in the starting 11 maybe explains why we have been missing from WCs and Euros for far too long.
John Clark 11th August 22.21.
not all ‘innovative’ ideas are necessarily good ideas.
True, but would at least show they were thinking “outside the box” for a change.
Regarding “gate sharing”, not sure if 100% accurate but may be of interest.
In 1980, Scottish football was enjoying a bit of serious competition for the league title.
Sir Alex Ferguson’s Aberdeen were strutting their stuff, regularly putting the Old Firm to the sword.
In the same period, Dundee United also offered a strong challenge to the Big Two.
However, the seeds of the destruction of competition in the Scottish Premiership were already in the ground.
It all started with the Rangers Development Fund.
This Fund was for years feed from the proceeds of weekly Prize Draws, with the tickets bought by Rangers supporters.
For years, no one at Rangers knew what to do with the monies that were being built up in the Development Fund.
There was much frustration at Ibrox, especially when Celtic were winning everything. Many would have wanted to spend the Fund on buying players – but the conditions of the Fund meant it could only be used for ground improvements.
By the end of the 1970’s, there were £ Millions in the Fund. In fact, enough to rebuild the Rangers stadium.
So that’s what happened. By 1981, Rangers built three new grandstands. Suddenly, they had a modern all-seater, 44,000 capacity stadium.
It has to be remembered that, when the plans for the new Ibrox were being drawn up, Rangers were going through a fallow period in terms of winning the league. They had won the 1977/78 title but by 1980, Celtic and Aberdeen ruled the roost. Rangers were “also rans”.
Pre 1980, the “wee teams” in Scottish football enjoyed a financial boost when they visited the Rangers and Celtic. Why? Because they received 50% of the gate receipts at Ibrox and Parkhead.
Rangers decided the way to change their fortunes was to hang on to all the gate receipts at their sparkling new stadium. So that’s what they proposed, backed by Celtic, who clearly saw the benefit of strengthening the hold the Old Firm had over Scottish football.
How the Glasgow giants got the other clubs to agree is beyond my understanding – but agree they did, in sufficient numbers to force the change through in 1980.
Within five years, competition was obliterated in Scottish football. The retained gate monies fuelled the domination of the Old Firm.
It took Celtic 18 years to copy Rangers “new stadium” wheeze. Perhaps not surprising therefore that Rangers won the league in ten of the eleven seasons between 1986/87 and 1996/97.
The advent of the European Champions League in 1992 cemented the financial domination of the Old Firm. Only Rangers and Celtic ever qualified for this economic bonanza.
So there you have it. The “also rans” voted for their own economic downfall in 1980.
Daft?
CRAZY!
And just for interest, can I say that I had tuned in to the Charles Green v The Chief Constable case at 10.00 a.m.
The phone line was live, but nothing happened until ,after about five minutes, Lord Tyre’s clerk said that there would be a delay of perhaps 10 minutes.
Well, it was actually 10.50 before the Court was in session!
After a few minutes, Lord Tyre had to interrupt to say that he was hearing that Counsel for the Chief Constable was having technical problems , and Counsel for Green [ Mr Borland?] came in to confirm that he was hearing that Counsel [Mr Moynihan]for the Lord Advocate had not heard anything of what he had said.
Lord Tyre at 10.57 decided that they should go into ‘practice mode’ until the techy problem was resolved.
It was resolved at 11.05, and Counsel for Green began at the beginning.
You will understand that I am not being critical, but trying to express my [ okay, auld geezer’s! ] appreciation of the technology that allows court cases to be heard remotely, and seen by those involved , although not yet by the ‘man in the street’ who can only listen on the phone line, as opposed to being able to wander in off the street and sit in any courtroom and see the proceedings.
I imagine that that will soon be possible and perhaps become the norm.
John Clark 11th August 22.21
not all ‘innovative’ ideas are necessarily good ideas.
True. Although it would demonstrate they are capable of thinking “outside the box”.
Regarding “gate sharing”, not sure if 100% accurate but may be of interest.
In 1980, Scottish football was enjoying a bit of serious competition for the league title.
Sir Alex Ferguson’s Aberdeen were strutting their stuff, regularly putting the Old Firm to the sword.
In the same period, Dundee United also offered a strong challenge to the Big Two.
However, the seeds of the destruction of competition in the Scottish Premiership were already in the ground.
It all started with the Rangers Development Fund.
This Fund was for years feed from the proceeds of weekly Prize Draws, with the tickets bought by Rangers supporters.
For years, no one at Rangers knew what to do with the monies that were being built up in the Development Fund.
There was much frustration at Ibrox, especially when Celtic were winning everything. Many would have wanted to spend the Fund on buying players – but the conditions of the Fund meant it could only be used for ground improvements.
By the end of the 1970’s, there were £ Millions in the Fund. In fact, enough to rebuild the Rangers stadium.
So that’s what happened. By 1981, Rangers built three new grandstands. Suddenly, they had a modern all-seater, 44,000 capacity stadium.
It has to be remembered that, when the plans for the new Ibrox were being drawn up, Rangers were going through a fallow period in terms of winning the league. They had won the 1977/78 title but by 1980, Celtic and Aberdeen ruled the roost. Rangers were “also rans”.
Pre 1980, the “wee teams” in Scottish football enjoyed a financial boost when they visited the Rangers and Celtic. Why? Because they received 50% of the gate receipts at Ibrox and Parkhead.
Rangers decided the way to change their fortunes was to hang on to all the gate receipts at their sparkling new stadium. So that’s what they proposed, backed by Celtic, who clearly saw the benefit of strengthening the hold the Old Firm had over Scottish football.
How the Glasgow giants got the other clubs to agree is beyond my understanding – but agree they did, in sufficient numbers to force the change through in 1980.
Within five years, competition was obliterated in Scottish football. The retained gate monies fuelled the domination of the Old Firm.
It took Celtic 18 years to copy Rangers “new stadium” wheeze. Perhaps not surprising therefore that Rangers won the league in ten of the eleven seasons between 1986/87 and 1996/97.
The advent of the European Champions League in 1992 cemented the financial domination of the Old Firm. Only Rangers and Celtic ever qualified for this economic bonanza.
So there you have it. The “also rans” voted for their own economic downfall in 1980.
Daft?
CRAZY!
JC
Further to my previous post an example of how wealth distribution worked in College Football in the USA.
REPORT: FOOTBALL TICKET REVENUE SHARING COST UW MORE THAN $950,000 IN 2012;
SPORTS
TODD D. MILEWSKI , The Capital Times , tmilewski@madison.com
When it comes to football gate revenues, the Big Ten Conference takes from the rich to give to the poor.
Under a long-held revenue sharing plan, more than $6.6 million went from the Big Ten’s top seven gate-revenue-producing schools – the University of Wisconsin included – to the bottom five in the 2012 season, according to an analysis by The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
The Wisconsin athletic department contributed more than $950,000 to that transfer in a system that The Gazette found was unique among major college football conferences.
Here’s how it works:
Big Ten teams share 35 percent of the net gate receipts, after sales tax, from conference home games, up to $1 million per game and at minimum $300,000 per game.
Each school has four conference home games per season, meaning the most any would pay in is $4 million. Five schools reached that level in 2012: Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State and Penn State.
The money from that pool gets split 12 ways and returned evenly to the schools.
In 2012, the total of gate receipts for the league’s 48 games was $36,458,053.71, or $3,038,171.14 per school.
Those five schools that paid in $4 million each ended up with a net loss of $961,828.86. Wisconsin paid in a little less – three of its four home games reached the $1 million cap but the home game against Illinois did not – so its loss was a little less as well.
It ended up being $957,854.22 out of the Badgers’ budget. Randy Marnocha, the UW associate athletic director for business operations, told a meeting of the UW Athletic Board’s finance, facilities and operations committee earlier this month that the department had budgeted to lose $800,000 last year in that revenue sharing agreement.
Michigan State also had a net loss ($862,933.66), while five schools had a revenue gain from the program:
Indiana, $1,722,143.29
Illinois, $1,312,175.70
Northwestern, $1,271,654.13
Minnesota, $1,266,143.74
Purdue, $1,057,815.29
Football gate receipts aren’t the only kind of money shared by Big Ten schools. Each year, they get a payout from the conference on media revenues, including those from the Big Ten Network.
Marnocha told the finance committee that in the 2012-13 school year, the athletic department brought in over $16 million from Big Ten media revenue.
Conference officials said the football ticket revenue sharing idea goes to the heart of the Big Ten philosophy.
“It’s very important philosophically because it was the first real commitment on the financial end, that our schools recognized that great things can be achieved by the collective good to share revenue in a way that’s beneficial to all,” Big Ten deputy commissioner Brad Traviolia told The Gazette. “It’s important to continue.
“It’s worked well for us. It’s a trust and a camaraderie among our institutions that’s been developed over a century. It’s part of who we are.”
October 31, 2013
Menace 11th August 21.47
The Bosman ruling didn’t come into effect until 1995 after a case involving The Belgian Football Association v Jean-Marc Bosman, a player at RFC Liege.
Rangers began signing English international players in 1986 (Butcher, Woods, Roberts) followed in the next few years by Stevens, Francis, Wilkins, Steven and Hateley.
As you can see the Bosman ruling played no part in the signing policy adopted by the club. A quick check of attendance figures at the time would show that the majority clubs attracted capacity crowds to their stadiums when Rangers visited.
Where i would agree with you is that a lack of competition isn’t good for the game in general but how that is addressed in future years is way beyond me.
Apologies for the (almost) duplicate posts.
First one disappeared only to reappear at a later date.
Albertz11 11th August 2021 At 23:50
I could be wrong, but I thought it was the mid 70’s when Scottish clubs stopped sharing gate receipts? Also, when gate receipts were shared, some clubs such as Falkirk and Kilmarnock were part-time, whereas they are now full time. It was not unusual to have part time clubs in the top league, so gate receipt sharing (at least then), was not the silver bullet it is currently presented as.
Here is the nub of it now though. People now envisage half of the many guaranteed millions Celtic and Rangers rake in via season ticket money these days going to other clubs. I doubt if every fan of those two clubs would be willing to part with money every season to finance other clubs. Some fans of clubs like Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts may well feel the same. Personally I would never be willing to do it. Others will see it differently and that’s fine.
Gate sharing was abolished in 1981.
Heralding 40 years of improvement in standards across Scottish football at club and international level. ?
Upthehoops 12th August 09.46.
I think it was later than that UTH. Being honest i couldn’t put a specific date or for that matter a year that “gate sharing” was replaced. I do however recall that Jim McLean of Dundee United was vociferous in his opposition to it.
Just seen BPs post.
I’m mildly surprised by how the BBC seems to be getting away with so many blatant references to the deid club.
As in…
Ex-Rangers chief Charles Green wins £6.3m payout.
It IS kinda accurate, but to keep the continuation myth rolling surely it should have “more accurately” been…
Rangers ex-chief Charles Green wins £6.3m payout?
There have been several articles headlined about the Ex-Rangers chief Charles Green.
And also some about “Former Rangers owner White”.
I like to think facts are chiels that winnae ding… but I’m being admittedly optimistic and.. parochial.
Big Pink 12th August 2021 At 10:38
Gate sharing was abolished in 1981.
Heralding 40 years of improvement in standards across Scottish football at club and international level. ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My view, for what it’s worth, is that the upping of the ante by Rangers in 1986 was the worst thing to happen. All other clubs tried to follow to a lesser extent, and many suffered financial events. While Celtic did not have an event as such, they came damned close to it. However, another problem surely had to be the then Bank of Scotland handing Rangers a blank cheque. There are so many reasons we are where we are, I just don’t see a return to gate sharing being the panacea for it all. I imagine a lot of fans might go back to paying at the gate and being more selective in their games. Celtic and Rangers were not drawing 50-60k crowds at home games in 1981 with 20-30k for most games more reflective.
Rightly or wrongly (and there is no right or wrong anyway), people IMO will not shell out £600+ on a season ticket knowing half of it goes to clubs who only bring a couple of hundred fans to their ground.
upthehoops 12th August 2021 At 12:55
Rightly or wrongly (and there is no right or wrong anyway), people IMO will not shell out £600+ on a season ticket knowing half of it goes to clubs who only bring a couple of hundred fans to their ground.
£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££
Or in other words, as an Old Firm fan I’m not willing to help finance any improvement in Scottish football because we are fine as we are and have no real interest in creating competition. Diddy clubs with a few hundred fans should be left to rot.
It’s a false assumption. If the entertainment spectacle improved people would want to be there and even if it didn’t they wouldn’t be the best fans in the world if they weren’t there to get right behind their team and cheer them all the way to Hampden.
DB
As you say, there is no right or wrong here: just a cultural attachment to one point of view.
From my perspective, I think it is fair to say that it requires two teams to provide the spectacle. Therefore both sets of performers deserve to be paid. Football is interdependent. I have never understood the position where folk are up in arms about ‘paying for the other team’, and I probably never will. Just my opinion of course, but I think it fails to understand what the game actually is. What is more objectively factual is that the descent into mediocrity began right around then. The arms race started by Murray exacerbated that of course, and almost killed Celtic before ironically killing Rangers themselves.
Wee bit of fertiliser on the whole garden. Not just on my blade of grass.
Bogs Dollox 12th August 2021 At 14:18
If you look back at my posts I said I’m not sure whether season ticket holders of the other more well supported clubs would be up for gate sharing either, and rightly so in my view. Clearly we don’t agree and that’s fine.
I see that our Rangers Tax Case friend has tweeted the Scottish football governing bodies with his concerns about a particular club’s solvency and its ability to complete the season. I very much doubt he is telling them something they are not already well acquainted with but are happily ignoring.
Rangers Tax-Case
@rangerstaxcase
·
3h
@spfl
@scottishfa
Open questions to Messrs Doncaster and Maxwell.
Do you have full confidence that all SPFL Premiership clubs have binding commitments of funding in place to ensure they can complete all 2021/22 fixtures?
What have you done to assess and mitigate such a risks?
Rangers Tax-Case
@rangerstaxcase
·
3h
Can you provide unambiguous guidance-
Is it acceptable for a club to complete the season by trading while insolvent, not remitting taxes, and increasing debt that cannot be repaid?
If this is ok, it is surely important that every club is aware of this fact?
I seriously doubt that there will be any existential crisis at Ibrox in the near to mid term.
Most of us have been surprised at the quantum of the bailouts in the form of soft loans in order to help make the new club competitive.
Individuals making that kind of commitment for those reasons will unlikely cut off the life support if there was a threat to their existence.
I am puzzled and impressed in equal measure at how the board have not only kept the ship afloat, but have given the engine enough revs to win a title whilst still in a financially inferior position (both acutely and chronically). I’d be lost for words if their legacy became “55 and over”
I know logic is not a cornerstone of the new Rangers saga, but that would be a step too wide of the mark.
Big Pink 12th August 2021 At 17:29
I too doubt that this particular iteration will fail but having achieved the stop of ten in a row then perhaps a more realistic approach to finance is the pragmatism that TRFC fans will need to accept. Financial fair play has been neutered by the Covid crisis but it will eventually come back in to play and all clubs will have to look to balancing their books accordingly. News media seems to be attempting to soften up supporters to accept the inevitable but if Celtic can’t shift Eduard at the moment for a realistic fee then what price Morelos?
Albertz11 — 11 August 2021 — 23:54
Your post of revenue sharing by American college football was insightful. It works because there is trust among the teams, solid governance of the league and competitions, and no one team believing it has a divine right to win every year and dictate to the governing board and throw a hissy fit when thing don’t go their way. I’ve long been an advocate that the those running the SFPL and SFA would do well to speak with other leagues in other sports to find out why they are successful in gaining sponsors, pleasing the fan base, and having the ability to plan down the road not in terms of days, weeks, months, but in years.
Ref gate sharing – nobody is complaining when the European gates are shared, so why are they for the league games
Also reminds me about a conversation I had with a Gers mate who argued that ad they had more fans they should get more tickets for a cup game. I reminded him that football was a competition for who had the best team not a competition for who had the most fans
I see the thorny issue of gate-sharing has raised its head again.
Celtic fans have every right to baulk at paying £600 for a season ticket on the basis that half of it would go to other clubs, so long as they give up any pretence of wanting any of ‘the diddies’ to provide a degree of domestic competition. In reality, what those Celtic fans really want is to preserve the status quo.
Presumably, those fans should boycott away matches too, otherwise they’d only be funding the opposition? As far as I’m aware, cup match revenue is still shared. Should fans boycott cup games into the bargain?
In my opinion, the argument that the host deserves to retain the entire proceeds is self-serving tosh that totally ignores the fundamental point that the event wouldn’t take place without an opponent.
Imagine a Muhammad Ali fan rocking up to the ticket office at Madison Square Garden and demanding that none of his hard-earned money should go to Ali’s opponent, Joe Frazier!
I’ve always understood that Scottish football was a mutual collective, a co-operative.
The SPFL, like its predecessors, exists to look after the interests of all of its members. That’s ALL OF THEM, not just the two with the largest support, who already have a massive financial advantage thanks to the droves of supporters who abandon their home-town clubs to travel to Ibrox and Parkhead, at least in large part thanks to a shameful century-plus history of pseudo-religious, Irish political bollox that should have no place in our game, but which is still tolerated because hatred and division make money.
Gate-sharing ceased around forty years ago at the behest of the Old Firm duo. Not long prior to that, Ibrox and Parkhead commonly hosted crowds as low as 10-20,000 before modernisation and expansion.
It’s strange that there were no concerns about the unfairness of gate-sharing regulations until later, when the capacity at Ibrox increased to nearly 50,000 and Celtic Park exceeded 60,000. Why should it take the foul stench of money for a century-old policy to be deemed unfit for purpose?
Only two clubs (three if you include the deceased) have won the top league title in the past 36 years and there is little chance of that appalling and frankly embarrassing statistic changing any time soon. Those who subscribe to the view that the ending of gate-sharing was purely coincidental to the duopoly’s subsequent stranglehold are truly delusional.
For far too long we’ve had to put up with myopic fans of the big two clubs, full of their own self-importance, thinking everything revolves around them, unaware of the existence of the bigger picture, far less seeing it.
They complain that they’re held back by a lack of domestic competition, while their two clubs do everything in their power to stifle that competition. Supposedly sworn enemies conniving and conspiring together on everything from unpunished industrial-scale cheating through to blind eyes being turned to the unwarranted granting of a UEFA license, via money-spinning glamour friendlies affecting fixture scheduling, right through to liquidation denial.
One of the two had the sheer audacity to claim that developing Celtic and Rangers* colt teams (but only those two, mind, nobody else!) in the lower leagues would be in the interests of the Scottish game as a whole, leading, as it inexorably would, to better quality players in the full national side. They conveniently omitted any rational explanation as to how playing against Edinburgh University or Vale of Leithen was going to improve the quality of the national side one iota, far less transform those involved into international class players.
Throughout my lifetime, I’ve always supported every Scottish club participating in European competition. As recently as last evening, I, as a Hearts fan, genuinely threw my support behind Hibs, Aberdeen and St Johnstone in their respective ties.
For the first time that I can recall, I couldn’t give a flying fork about how Celtic and Rangers* got on, because I realised that only they are capable of reaching the lucrative later stages of European competitions, whose prizes would simply extend the existing financial disparity between them and the rest of us.
I’d wager that most fans of Scotland’s two biggest supported clubs would be very much against the principle of the short-lived European Super League, whose arrogant, selfish, money-driven clubs want to create a closed shop at the elite level of the game. I believe Celtic and Rangers* already operate a closed shop, only further down the food chain from Barca, Madrid and Juventus, thanks to our short-sighted administrators.
Drastic action is required in Scottish football and while I don’t profess to have all the answers, it seems to me that reverting to gate-sharing would only negatively impact the two clubs who need pegging back in order to provide a more level playing field.
We could surely do worse than taking a leaf out of US sports’ book by turning the award of prize-money on its head so that those most in need of it receive help, while those who are more successful receive less.
Counter-intuitively, that may seem like a bizarre way to address a problem, but unless radical ideas are implemented, we’re set for another forty years of tedious league duopoly. Let’s face it – even when one of the two participants died, the only option considered by the incompetents who administer our game was to pretend it never happened, and forlornly hope nobody noticed.
Highlander
Got nothing to say to counter any of your points – although I draw the line at being indifferent to Celtic’s progress in Europe – and agree with almost all of them.
The problem with having a set of conservative directors in boardrooms at almost every club, is that they are highly unlikely to embrace radical ideas, whether those ideas are business models, or football models.
The degree of self-harm that was required to enable the majority of clubs to agree to the abolition of gate sharing is breathtaking – especially in an industry where clubs usually vote for narrow self interest. Perhaps inducements were offered. I wonder how that worked out for everyone then?
The power of the “wee diddy” clubs is still there though. As in 2002 the threat of mass resignation from the SPL would focus very clearly on the reality that without someone to play, even a Real Madrid or a Man U would see spectacular revenue drops.
The voting structures within the leagues alone would be a legal justification for moving on and setting up their own competitions.
The self-harm thing is still very strong though.
Vernallen 13th 01.35
Your “one team” reference makes you sound like Murdoch MacLennan who couldn’t bring himself to refer to my team by name earlier this week.
For the record i don’t think that we (Rangers) believe we have “a divine right to win every year” and if we’re dictating to the governing board then we’re not doing a very good job.
As for speaking to other leagues or sports, that’s a part of what i referred to by being innovative and driving the sport forward, but to borrow BPs line “Of course it won’t happen”.
Albertz11 13th August 2021 At 15:51
I think MacLennan was being cognisant of TRFC’s fans and their victim/martyr complex , and was sparing their feelings .
Why can’t gates be shared in different proportions eg 90/10 % ? There are usually about that number of away fans at most matches .
Paddy Malarkey 13th August 18.11
Seriously doubt that Murdoch MacLennan is cognisant of anything to be honest, as for sparing our feelings, he has made his opinion of Rangers pretty clear in the past has he not?
Gate sharing will not return any time soon, if ever.
Albertz11 13th August 2021 At 19:18
If he’d mentioned you by name , the rest of us would have to put up with the squeals of ” it’s always big , bad , Rangers ” .
And never say never re gate sharing – it wasn’t that long ago that certain clubs were agitating for a share of the away gate due to the number of fans they brought .
When the change to home teams keeping gate receipts was passed crowd averages were much closer than they are now and the top 4 /maybe 5 clubs probably viewed keeping their own gates was a net gain (short term, narrow interest). And the next one or two probably thought they would be able to boost their home gates in the typical optimistic view of football fans everywhere.
So I can see how the decision was approved. However the growth in crowds for Celtic and RFC outstripped every other club – Celtic’s average home crowd doubled in less than 20 years – whereas other clubs have been broadly flat or down.
I am not defending the status quo as I believe the lack of domestic challenge hurts our teams on the international stage.
Undoing that decision now is difficult to see without some sort of directive from UEFA. It would be easier for the authorities to do their bit to level the playing field by looking at prize money distribution – the largesse from CL distorts and corrupts domestic leagues. And SPL and SFA could be more imaginative – for example if you win the league then entry to CL qualification equates to your prize money for winning the league. If you don’t reach group stages then you get prize money for winning the league. If you qualify then you forfeit the league prize money. Similar for Europa League.
Just this minute noticed this in the Rolls of Court:
“LORD TYRE – S Alexander, Clerk
Thursday 19th August
Preliminary Hearing
Between 9.00am and 9.30am
CA71/20 Duff & Phelps Ltd v The Lord Advocate”
No idea really what this is about.
What an ingloriously dirty f.ckin mess RFC of 1872 created all round-
the death of a football club
f-cked up prosecutions,
destruction of the integrity of Scottish football governance,
enormous public expense in damages,
creditors done out of millions……
Honest to God, who could be arsed with the whole rotten lot?
And who among us will believe that ‘Truth’ about it all will ever emerge?
John Clark 13th August 2021 At 23:57
I think the Herald reported that whoever now owns D&P is suing for ‘reputational damage’ & ‘loss of trade’ caused to to that fine, upstanding company by malicious prosecutions of its employees.
I’m sure I saw sums of both £60m & £120m mentioned in the article (possibly published on Wednesday or Thursday this week).
my post of 13th August 2021 At 23:57 refers
I don’t know who Rachel Mackie is but it her name over a piece in today’s ‘The Scotsman’ that ensures I will never read anything she ever reports about anything with any belief in the accuracy of her reporting.
The piece informs us that the Rolls of Court entry I mention in my post is to do with the firm Duff and Phelps claiming damages against the Crown Office for losses cause to it as a result of the ‘malicious prosecutions’ of its employees.
So far so good.
Then the nonsense reporting begins. ” This week” she says,” former chairman Charles Green accepted a settlement out of court”
She repeats parrot-fashion the UNTRUTH that Charles Green was chairman of RFC plc. and appears to be stupid enough not to notice that she contradicts herself when she later says ” David Whitehouse and Paul Clark took over as administrators at Rangers during the well-documented financial collapse and subsequent liquidation of Rangers FC plc in 2012″.
And then illogically adds “The dire situation resulted in the Glasgow giants being demoted to the bottom tier of Scottish Football and the creation of a new parent company”
It is an absolute fact that CG was never chairman of RFC of 1872.
It is an absolute fact that RFC of 1872 lost its existence , through liquidation, as a football club, and was never ‘demoted’.
It is an absolute fact that SevcoScotland/TRFC did not exist prior to 2012.
What an absolutely misleading report, and I fear that Miss Mackie joins the ranks of those in the SMSM who I believe to have done, and who continue to do, a disservice to journalism and who therefore cynically spit in the eye of real journalists who are ready to die to defend, support and report Truth.
God grant that newspapers such as the ‘Scotsman’ that carry stories like this end up joining RFC of 1872 in Liquidation.
Jingso.Jimsie 14th August 2021 At 10:41
‘..I’m sure I saw sums of both £60m & £120m..’
%%%%%%%
Yes, thanks, Jingo.jimsie: I just saw that this morning.
I’d like to see how D&P quantify their losses.
Have they a wee list of clients world-wide who discontinued using their services when Whitehouse and Clark were[ wrongfully] charged, or a wee list of clients who might have been going to use them but said that they wouldn’t?
Mind you, in terms of big civil actions for damages I suppose even £120 million is chicken feed for world-wide legal firms.
If the Crown Office seeks an out-of-court settlement, I suppose we’ll never hear what the figure would be or on what basis it would be arrived at. We’ll all just share the feckin bill as tax-payers.
Just another incidental piece of sh.te dumped on us all by SDM who, in my opinion, was the primary cause of all that went bad at the Rangers of my grandfather’s day and which has been as dead since 2012 as he has been since 1951, God rest him.
Isn’t the higher figure of £120m very similar to the total COPFS budget for a year?
https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/1426587845326606337
@Corrupt Official- my own view is that we need to get Westminister interested / involved. Not something I would personally want to invoke given our current PM but perhaps sometimes needs must…
Corrupt official 14th August 2021 At 19:40
++++++++++++++
Having written to the First Minister on this matter I received a reply that there will be a public inquiry. Personally I have no faith it will get to the bottom of the matter as too many influential people seem up to their neck in it. We might get the actual truth in 30 years, but many of us won’t be around to hear it. What on earth was the intended end game with this? It’s truly appalling.
Albertz11 11th August 2021 At 19:12
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/gordon-smith-resignation-archaic-sfa-no-place-anyone-vision-2459341
……………………..
This would be the same Gordon smith who said his hands were tied at the ibrox club, all very familiar at deflecting the blame onto someone else.
The real highlight of smith credability was his obscure idea that if the ibrox fans could change some of the words to the Billy boys it might keep UEFA away from the door. How this guy is ever dug out to give an opinion on anything to do with scottish football is beyond rational thinking.
Wokingcelt, UTH, & JC,
I doubt Westminster will involve itself in Scots law, exemplified by HMRC, who had to undergo the due process time wasting deliberations of the Scottish courts before finally getting it to London under UK jurisdiction.
However, considering how high up the tree these parasites creep and their control over so many facets of Scottish society, from the legals to the beat bobbies, to the SMSM and the then First minister pleading for clemency on behalf of a tax dodging knighted scumbag, then the question must be asked, Is a fitba club running the country, or is the country running a fitba club?…….Or is A.N. Other running both to suit it’s own agenda?.
I wish I knew, because knowing where the boadies are buried commands a tidy sum in the hush stakes.
I’ll wager a coal miners piece-box has seen less dirty haun’s than this crimewave.
Cluster One 14th August 23.00
The reason he said that was simply because it’s true and reflected the chaotic manner in which Craig Whyte ran the business. Unavailable to meet face to face, e-mails not responded to, no board meetings held, kept in the dark re- decision making, that’s just a few of the examples i could give.
Re- the Billy Boys.Is that not true? Had the fans changed one verse or to be accurate one word the song wouldn’t be on the banned list alongside many others, on both sides of the Old Firm divide.
Cluster One 14th August 2021 At 23:00
This would be the same Gordon smith who said his hands were tied at the ibrox club, all very familiar at deflecting the blame onto someone else.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I remember when the Supreme Court ruled that Rangers had operated EBT’s illegally, and the SFA were panicking about old coals being raked over. Even the Celtic Board were stating publicly that an independent investigation was required, and the SPFL Board agreed…the SFA of course didn’t.
So following on Gordon Smith was a guest on Sportsound. He said that at the time Rangers operated (the illegal) EBT’s, that the league was more competitive…he actually said that in an attempt to justify what Rangers did was okay! There are no words to describe.
As for anyone wondering why he still gets media gigs. Surely it is rather obvious…even that one isn’t a secret.
upthehoops 14th August 2021 At 20:19
“.. I received a reply that there will be a public inquiry.. Personally I have no faith it will get to the bottom of the matter as too many influential people seem up to their neck in it’
%%%%%%%%%
Well, with the likes of Murdo Fraser MSP [from whom God preserve us] who cleverly and, in my view, mischievously, suggested in the Press that a serving Judge of the Court of Session has ‘questions to answer’ in so far as he was the Lord Advocate on whose watch the ‘malicious prosecutions’ were brought, the chances of the Scottish Parliament agreeing on the terms of reference of a public inquiry and of finding a Judge prepared to sit as head of such an Inquiry , or for such an Inquiry to be seen as ‘independent’ , are in my opinion , very very slim.
The ‘terms of reference’ are key.
What would the Inquiry be trying to do? Who would be required to give evidence under oath, and as to what?
You know, I feel I could write the final report myself, even now![ Perhaps I shall write it in summary, and send it in a sealed envelope to the blog Administrators, for publication [ at premium rates of course] on the blog a day or two before the official publication of the Inquiry’s report!]
Cynical?
Yes, extremely so.
What I don’t know is whether Westminster has any say in the matter, under the Devolution Settlement?
I suspect that the turd created by SDM’s cheating is probably as much our own wee Scottish legal turd as the ‘turd’ topping the St James Quarter in Edinburgh!
It is Scotland’s own shi.e and Westminster probably does not have either the power or interest enough to wipe our a.se free of it.
Honest to God!
That it should come to this, in a matter of the rotten cheating of a football club having been discovered and not properly and honestly dealt with by the SFA and SPL/SFL!
Dear God, how badly we were served and continue to be served by self-serving, canting, hypocritical barstewards masquerading as members of governance bodies in a Sport.
What worse evils might we expect from , yes, self-serving ,self-protecting barstewards of politicians and a ‘public inquiry’?
We will have to wait and see, won’t we?
Corrupt official
14th August 2021 At 23:13
2 0 Rate This
Wokingcelt, UTH, & JC,
I doubt Westminster will involve itself in Scots law, exemplified by HMRC, who had to undergo the due process time wasting deliberations of the Scottish courts before finally getting it to London under UK jurisdiction.
…………
CO
There were 4 stages to the ebt process:
1st Tier Tribunal
Upper Tier Tribunal
Court of Session (Inner House)
UK Supreme Court
The only time in came within the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Scottish courts was at the Court of Session.
The 1st and Upper decisions were broadly in line with previous cases – framing the case law – primarily through tribunals and Appeal Court hearings held in England.
Probably noteworthy that this Scottish court was the first occasion any court in the UK had cut through the legalese and come to the correct decision with regard to ebts. Even at the UK Supreme Court it was the Scottish members who seemed to be most critical of the previous nonsensical case law that had allowed dubiety over the legality of any form of ebt.
I think we will find that, in the upcoming Public Enquiry, legal decisions can only be made according to the evidence and arguments set before the court. HMRC is a department of the UK government and had that responsibility in relation to ebts.
It might be too cynical to think that ebts were a benefit to one part of society that some within the UK government (of whatever hue) wanted to keep onside. It is really a question for HMRC (and the UK government) as to why the arguments that turned around conventional thinking on ebts weren’t put before a court until 2015.
On this matter, the Scottish judiciary, when the relevant evidence and arguments were presented, did what it should have done. It really did.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58222495
HirsutePursuit 15th August 2021 At 08:59
There were 4 stages to the ebt process:
1st Tier Tribunal
Upper Tier Tribunal
Court of Session (Inner House)
UK Supreme Court
The only time in came within the ‘jurisdiction’ of the Scottish courts was at the Court of Session.
Happy to have my anger driven cognitive dissonance put in check there HP.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/5FRMWqxZFGyK4wvIjWefOR?si=XWAX_2uFRx-ws2Jb8pEu9g&dl_branch=1
……………..
Charles Green interview Aug 15, 2021
I note the gleeful tones from Rangers fans in regards to recent wins over perceived inferior competition. What do they say in regards to the wins over bottom of the table Livingstone and a lower division club in Dunferline. Also not much about a home filed loss to 10 man Malmo. Albertz11 my earlier post in regards teams feeling a divine right to win titles was not directed to your Rangers but to both Glasgow teams.
Cluster One 15th August 2021 At 19:38
In print .
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/charles-green-explosive-rangers-rant-24764581
I listened to the entire Charles Green interview last night and it’s an hour of my life that I’ll never get back. Hosts Keys and Gray were like fawning sycophants as Green rambled from subject to subject without actually divulging anything other than “I am Rangers’ saviour.”
It could easily have been produced by Jim Traynor during his Ibrox propaganda years, such was the lack of factual accuracy and lack of a probing question.
At the end, Andy Gray had the audacity to claim that he’d asked all the difficult questions that the Rangers fans wanted to know the answers to, despite failing to raise one solitary challenging matter in the entire interview.
As an example, Green mentioned that he’d bought the assets. Moments later, Gray ‘translated’ that into “when you bought the club out of administration.”
Green admitted that, during a meeting with Reagan and Doncaster, they and the legal people at the SFA and SPL (presumably Rod McKenzie) had warned that the club had to be punished for breaking the rules.
Green was incredulous that anyone should have the temerity to consider punishing the mighty Rangers, who as we all know, don’t do punishments. As history shows, he got his way though, because despite the Supreme Court’s guilty verdict, the spineless football authorities subsequently told us there was no appetite for raking over old coals.
Green even tried to tell us that he failed to negotiate contracts with Adidas and Under Armour because they were too busy with the likes of Liverpool and didn’t have the capacity to look after Rangers too. I’m just surprised he didn’t mention that the proposed tie-up with the Dallas Cowboys collapsed as he was in hospital and missed the crucial email detailing the contract.
Throughout the interview, Green came across as a loud-mouthed buffoon. So too did Keys & Gray.
Highlander 16th August 2021 At 08:29
‘.Throughout the interview, Green came across as a loud-mouthed buffoon.’
%%%%%%%%
Thanks for posting that link Highlander.
I was tickled by these snippets in particular:
” .. So you needed enough cover to deal with these liabilities. But of course the CVA didn’t go ahead and it was a different story. I also had to pay all the old clubs debts and these are things people don’t recognise.
We’re now classed by the Scottish FA and everyone as a new club. But I had to pay all the oldco’s debts. I used to argue, if we’re the oldco that’s fine, we’ll pay all the debts. If we’re newco we’re newco, we haven’t got the debts.”
“What angered me as well was, all these Rangers fanatic players who disappeared to get fat signing on fees because they had freedom of contract, they’ve all come back now”
“…we’ve got all the other problems coming like ‘You’re not going to be able to play in the Premier League, you’re going into non-league football and we might not even give you a license to play..”
He had nothing to worry about on that score, had he, knowing the kind of moral cowards he was dealing with, ready to abandon the very thing they were in office to uphold and preserve- Sporting integrity.
Those who signed the 5-Way Agreement and refused to have the ‘Res 12’ issue independently examined deserve infinitely more contempt than the likes of those who merely sought to make make money by deceit.
Could be another rant coming from Stewart Robertson against the DR as Keith Jackson has, what has to be an unintentional pun, in his article about the problems facing SG. Stating he must feel like he’s dealing with a second hand car salesman may infringe on some of their secret contacts with auto dealers. How does Parks feel about this as he’s in the auto business. Will the DR be again banned from Ibrox unless they cough up the 25,000 user fee for media access. Another week another target to distract from the issues at Ibrox.
Albertz11 14th August 2021 At 23:38
Re- the Billy Boys.Is that not true? Had the fans changed one verse or to be accurate one word the song wouldn’t be on the banned list alongside many others, on both sides of the Old Firm divide.
…………………………….
I should pretend i never read that post, but will give you the benifit of the doubt.
UEFA stated that it is the signature song of a sectarian gang and represented a long-running sectarian divide, regardless of what lyrics were used.
…………………..
https://twitter.com/Zeshankenzo/status/1166425377792823296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1166425377792823296%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.followfollow.com%2Fforum%2Fthreads%2Fchanging-billy-boys-lyrics-linfield-example.87567%2F
…………………..
You somehow wanted to bring celtic into the argument, but i can never remember celtic fans singing the Billy boys or having an ex SFA member willing to change the lyrics so that they could sing a banned song.
Cluster One 16th August 18.52
Don’t recall any punishment from UEFA when the Kilmarnock supporters sang (more than once) the “Killie Boys” in their most recent European campaign. Any idea as to why that would be?
As you are no doubt aware many other clubs supporters sing a version of the same song but importantly change a couple of words with no repercussions.
I have never heard the Celtic support sing the BB.I have however heard them sing songs that are also on the same “banned list” as the BB.
I do however see little / no benefit in continuing with any debate into whose fans are worse, whether that be singing banned songs or displaying offensive banners that attract fines or worse from UEFA.
Albertz11 16th August 2021 At 20:33
Maybe because “up to our knees in Ayr blood” isn’t deemed sectarian or racist ? And not whitabootery as I honestly don’t know , but what songs have CFC fans been banned from singing ?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58235195
Interesting to read that Barcelona are more than a billion pounds in debt and that the BBC are presently attributing the debt to the club. Strangely, the BBC makes no mention of any operating company, holding company, corporate entity housing the club, or engine-room subsidiary.
The current and past club presidents may be having a major spat about exactly who is to blame for the financial basket-case each has presided over, but they seem united in acknowledging that the debt belongs to their club, not some mythical and expendable operating company.
Paddy Malarkey 17th August 11.50.
Exactly my point Paddy. The offensive language used in the BB could have been replaced by an alternative, which would contain no references that could be considered sectarian or racist. This is what Gordon Smith has said on many occasions.
Songs sung by the Celtic support that mention a Irish terrorist organisation are also banned.
Albertz11 16th August 2021 At 20:33
Don’t recall any punishment from UEFA when the Kilmarnock supporters sang (more than once) the “Killie Boys” in their most recent European campaign. Any idea as to why that would be?
…………………..
There are no sectarian undertones to their song?
…………………..
Rangers FC is also ordered to make a public adderss announcement at every official fixture be it international or domestic stating that any sectarian chanting and any form of the Billy boys is strictly prohibited. UEFA appeals body judgement May 24, 2006.
……………….
Again you try to drag other clubs in to the debate.
…………..
I have never heard the Celtic support sing the BB.I have however heard them sing songs that are also on the same “banned list” as the BB.
……
You confirm the BB is on a banned list, yet are willing to promote the changing of words to try and make it not.
I would post the whole UEFA letter but am unable to and i can’t be bothered to type the whole thing out.
But if you can be bothered i would like to see this list of songs sung by celtic fans that are on UEFAs banned list
paddy malarkey 16th August 2021 At 01:54
…………………
Explosive Rant? should read Green spills a few home truths.
Albertz11 17th August 2021 At 16:13
Eh , not quite . What I’m saying is that UEFA have deemed the Billy Boys , as sung by TRFC fans , to be racist , and that altering the words doesn’t remove this connotation – it is banned and not to be sung . If you have a problem with Killie fans singing their version (which is not banned ) then mibbes bring it to UEFA’s attention ? Or even ask Gordon Smith , who seems to be an authority in these matters . TRFC and CFC (and all other)fans should be hammered for their sectarian/racist/repulsive add ons , but you’ve yet to say which CFC songs are banned .
Paddy Malarkey 17th August 19.53.
The original words to the “Marching Through Georgia” tune, which was sung at Ibrox when i first attended would be my own personal preference to replace the BB.
A goal, a goal we are ready to acclaim
A goal, a goal to win another game
We follow Glasgow Rangers our hearts are strong and true
We are the people who cheer the boys in blue.
No sectarianism, No Racism.
Re – Celtic. Unsure and frankly not interested in what pro-IRA chant they were fined for. Could have been one of many i guess.
Strange urge to bite my tongue and rub ointment into my ribs. It’ll pass I’m sure.
Big Pink 17th August 2021 At 22:34
“…Strange urge to bite my tongue and rub ointment into my ribs.”
%%%%%%%%
On the assumption, BP, that this ‘strange urge’ was triggered by Albertz11’s post of 20.49 [or have I missed something?] I will express my own astonishment [not necessarily ‘disbelief’] that Albertz11 or anyone else ever heard such words sung to the tune of ” while we we were marching through Georgia”.
I’ve no idea what age Albertz11 is , but I’m 78,and never in my puff have I heard his version [actually not quite bad version as an acceptable supporters’ song!] of the lyrics as being those of the song that I ever heard from huge numbers of fans of the original Rangers FC of 1872 foundation, sadly now deceased.
And I don’t think I’ve heard them from the fans of TRFC?
It would be lovely if we were were to hear them ( or a similar ‘innocent’ but genuine supporters’ song) over the tannoy at Ibrox.
Or is that already happening? I haven’t attended a match there since before the EBT scandal broke, and I stand ready to be corrected.
BP & JC
From FF 3 years ago.
Oct 5, 2018
Add bookmark
#4
A goal, a goal we are ready to acclaim
A goal, a goal to win another game
We follow Glasgow Rangers our hearts are strong and true
We are the people who cheer the boys in blue
That’s what my da taught me
A goal, a goal we are ready to acclaim
A goal, a goal to win another game
We follow Glasgow Rangers our hearts are strong and true
We are the people who cheer the boys in blue
That’s what my da taught me
That’s the one from my youth, many years ago.
Oct 5, 2018
Add bookmark
#9
A goal, a goal, we’re ready to acclaim
A goal, a goal, to win another game
and 50,000 voices
will cheer the whole game through
we are the people, who cheer the boys in blue
same as above, different verse.
Not sure how many times you attended Ibrox back in the early 70s but like me if you had you would have heard this song being sung.
I honestly wasn’t aware of an alternative version (BB) until a number of years later when i heard it sung on a supporters bus.
Was going to comment on your sore ribs BP but will bite my tongue.