UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?
On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.
The cases of two clubs::
Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )
and
FC Irtysh (Kazakhstan)
are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because
- The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
- The cases tell us what might have happened to Rangers FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.
FC Sion (Olympique des Alpes SA)
Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.
Full details can be read at
but this is a summary.
In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.
In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme, carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.
The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.
Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:
“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as
“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”
What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.
Sion had declared
“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.
The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.
Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.
Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.
The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.
Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.
The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.
- FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
- To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
- To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
- FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.
This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.
“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”
The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:
Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.
Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.
This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement
“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “ where he also added
“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”
This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.
In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.
The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.
The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.
Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March
It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.
The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)
The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:
- FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
- To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
- FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “
The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC, FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.
Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.
From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then
- Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
- At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
- The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.
Karma eh!
Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors
“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;
Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?
This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.
An interview with Peter Lawell. Slightly Celtic based, but he also discusses the future of Scottish fitba, Euope, and global wide.
http://celticunderground.net/chatting-with-peter-lawwell/
Re the TU/TDs: does anyone really care? I’d rather the option was removed entirely.
::
::
Re the ticket allocation stushie: I doubt if either CFC or TRFC will be able to present an amended safety case for reduced numbers that will satisfy Police Scotland/SFA/SPFL/GCC.
That leaves two possibilities, I suppose. The status quo will be maintained or there will be no ‘away’ fans present at matches between the two.
NICKMAY 25, 2018 at 10:42
ALLYJAMBOMAY 25, 2018 at 10:30
Not sure of the specific posts in question but as a general point I would suggest a mix of thumbs up and thumbs down would be a very positive sign that this website is flourishing. I’ve lurked on this page for years and started to comment occasionally a few months ago purely because I felt there was a danger of “groupthink” taking hold at times. Many posts were bland generic “Rangers bad” ones with 50 TU, then along came one of the few brave bears who venture on here with equally bland “Rangers good” or “Celtic bad” posts to an immediate onslaught of 50 TD.
Perhaps more of a mix of responses to each post is a good sign that the site is reaching a wider cross section of people and the readers’ opinions are becoming more nuanced?
It’s equally likely that it’s just daft trolls trying to annoy people with a thumbs down right enough.
____________
No specific posts in mind, just thought there seemed to be an inordinate number of TDs for pretty uncontroversial posts, while none of the TDers responded to rubbish those posts. For example, John Clark made a post that had attracted 24 TDs yet no one has posted anything to challenge what he said. John is a poster well worth engaging with, regardless of the subject matter, yet, apparently, 24 people disagree with him but not to the extent they feel their thoughts on the matter stand up enough to respond. It’s an unusual pattern, and that is what intrigued me.
It’s in engaging with people, and arguing one’s point of view, that we will thrash out what’s wrong with Scottish football, and maybe, just maybe, get someone within a position of influence to act to make a meaningful change to the governance of the game. TDs alone won’t do that.
HELPUMOOTMAY 25, 2018 at 10:39
Not wanting to speak for Tayred but I think he is talking more about the current state of affairs.
However even accepting the theory of ‘the establishment’ favouring Rangers, Celtic didn’t do too bad in year gone by in terms of titles, trophies etc when compared to the rest of the Scottish game.
The two cheeks accusation may not be liked but the current moans and groans about pitches etc , while Celtic are still sweeping everything before them is, to fans of other clubs, suspiciously like the same superiority complex rhetoric that comes out Ibrox.
I seem to recall plenty of dismissive posts on here when McCoist was complaining about pitches or Warburton was waxing lyrical about something that wasn’t really his concern.
Celtic and their fans have done a great job in trying to break away from the Old Firm tag and have been vindicated, in terms of evidence coming forth, that some of their long held paranoia was well founded.
However it would be a shame to have lose the good will that has been gained, by some supporters raising every apparent slight against the club as being a major disaster.
Maybe old habits die hard!
It is not the job of any football club’s manager and players to bend over and take it just because someone thinks they are high an mighty.
Indeed that is even more of an encouragement for them to do everything within the rules of the game to stop any other club, let alone just Celtic, from winning a game of football.
It is not a slight on the opposing club, in fact it is a backhanded compliment and part and parcel of the game.
I would expect it when Hearts go to a lower league team in the upcoming League Cup and Celtic should similarly expect it and (with their vast resources) be prepared for anything at any opposition ground.
Otherwise for the foreseeable future, if it all too much for them to take, we would be as well as just playing the league as one of those ‘tables without Celtic’ things you see from time to time.
BFBPUZZLED May 24th 14.58
“Jimbo,….. As to preying on folks empathy – praying is not preying and I believe the other poster overstepped the mark in what he said.”
Okay, I’ll explain fully why I said what I said, BFB. Late on Saturday night – after the cup final – a post appeared (for a short time) which was lavishing praise on Jimbo. The post was signed by another poster on here. However, the moniker for that post read ‘JIMBO.’
I could have went to town on it but simply stated that I found it “strange.” On Monday, Jimbo posted a barely coherent piece about him having dual personalities. Then more recently, he posted claiming that he didn’t know how to work the edit facility when he seemed to have worked it perfectly well on Saturday night.
Now I stand accused of being a hater, of overstepping the mark and being ordered (by Jimbo) to “Leave!”
It seems a bit unfair to me. A simple explanation would have been helpful.
Spot on Wottpi.
Celtic are playing on the same pitches as everyone else. Its up to the home club what surface to prepare, in exactly the same way that Celtic prepare their own, probably slightly shorter than everyone else(?) to suit their passing game. There is absolutely no difference!
Especially when Celtic are so far ahead of everyone else, they should lose this strange victim like undertone cos it just sounds poor to the rest of us. Same with this sudden myth that Brown is a marked man! That every team you face is overly physical, or indeed that only they are doing anything about RFC/TRFC and its misdemeanours. The blue team are the ones with the historical (all 6 years of it) superiority complex, lets leave that to them please.
Brendan Rodgers did not confine his criticisms to away pitches. He complained during the 2016/17 season about the pitch at Celtic Park, with the result that Celtic are spending a substantial sum at the moment to complete the laying of a new surface.
i have sympathy with home teams who feel the set up of their own ground should favour themselves.
what I would like explained, is the refusal to water the pitch at Hampden during the Scottish cup final.
the game was supposedly being played at a neutral ground, favouring neither side.
Did the SFA discuss Celtics request with Motherwell? Did Motherwell then object because watering didn’t suit them?
Oddjob, I’d guess both teams have to agree? Much the same as in Rugby Union at Cardiff where both teams have to agree to have the roof open or closed? If one team said yes and the other said no – toss of a coin? Compromise and allow it to be mildly moist?
Tayred,
i would agree there should be a compromise which is fair to both sides, thus preserving the neutrality of the ground. Unfortunately, no one seems to have given an explanation.
Sometimes it may be overlooked that football is a spectator sport.
As such, it should be presented in the best possible way, for the enjoyment of said supporters. This should centre around players having the best conditions in which to produce and hone their skills.
A major part of this would be to present the playing surface in the best possible condition to enable players to demonstrate their skills in the best possible manner, for the appreciation of the fans.
Apparently UEFA and the EPL have certain criteria for pitch conditions.
Anything that hinders the performance of skillful players is an offence against the game of football and if the acceptance of “nobbled” pitches is the norm in Scotland, then perhaps this contributes to the overall reputation of the game there.
There are young, skillful players at almost every club in the country.
These players deserve the opportunity to practice these skills against the best in the country, on the best possible pitch conditions.
I would go further and legislate for a fixed pitch size for Premiership games and plastic pitches should be banned.
The only criteria should be, what will make the game better for the paying customer?
THOMTHETHIMMAY 25, 2018 at 14:09
As discussed the other day nobody gave two hoots about pitches when the Lisbon Lions were playing on ploughed fields.
The reality is that these days, even a ‘poor pitch’ is like a bowling green compared to days gone by and games are called off at the drop of a hat if the ref thinks the surface is a danger.
I totally get what you are saying and as a Hearts fan I am delighted that my club is investing in a quality playing surface for next season.
However I believe the perfect pitch thing is overplayed by both players and managers. IMHO part of the problem today is that many players have a poor touch because they are unable to deal with a ball that doesn’t behave exactly how they expect it to.
It isn’t by chance that the skills of the likes of Jimmy Johnstone and the Brazil team of the 70s were learnt on shitty Glasgow playgrounds and on Brazilian beaches and rough patches of land playing with balls that weren’t exactly round.
Yes you can try and present them in the best condition possible but pitches will never ever be uniform due to a whole range of environmental factors.
If you want a uniform pitch then the only way is to play in an indoor climate controlled stadium with everyone having the exact same type of grass, astro or hybrid.
That ain’t ever going to happen anytime soon, so stop the moaning and accept that we play in Scotland and within the space of seven days most players in the other 41 SPFL teams (and especially those in the lower divisions) could be playing on a nicely mowed pitch one week and then a semi frozen rutted sand filled mess the next, let alone having a club set up their pitch in a manner that suits the home team.
PS whats more exciting for the paying customer a tippy tappy back pass that is always going to run nicely back to the keeper with time to spare or one that gets stuck in the mud and the whole stadium is on tenterhooks to see if the stranded keeper or the charging centre forward is going to get their first
WOTTPIMAY 25, 2018 at 14:59
Thanks for the response.
However, I don’t think the comparison with the ploughed fields of yesteryear to now is valid.
That was then and this is now.
Of course the Jinky’s and Brazilians learned their skills on coups and beaches respectively, but they went on to play at the top level on the best available surfaces, even though, in Europe, it was often muddy fields.
They also played in Hotspur boots with leather studs, with protruding nails and a ball, when wet, was like a cannonball.
None of these are relevant now.
They play with the best available gear, all the better to show their skills.
There are always the vagaries of weather to contend with, so, I suggest that part of your defense is a non sequitur.
Even today, frozen pitches are rare at the top level and any games postponed are more usually due to spectator safety, than player safety.
I understand that below top grade football, clubs cannot afford top class facilities, but I’m sure you remember when Falkirk were denied promotion due to not having an all seated stadium, much to Aberdeen’s delight.
Anyway, I think the point has been lost along the way.
It is not about the state of some clubs’ grounds, it is about the deliberate acts, aimed at negating good football, to the detriment of the paying (customer) fan.
On both recent occasions when Celtic complained about the playing surface, they had won.
Therefore, all that Hearts achieved was to deprive the spectators of a better match.
At least, they did it in an attempt to gain an advantage for their team.
What was the motive of the SFA at Hampden last week?
Answers on a postcard.
WOTTPI
MAY 25, 2018 at 14:59
I agree with the point about teams doing everything within the rules to win, and especially that Celtic can’t moan about it, given the financial advantage that they have. The bad side of all this is that it hampers us (Scottish teams) in Europe because the majority of the teams have better pitches, and our own surfaces are better at the time of year the qualifiers are played. The same goes for our refereeing leniency towards physical challenges that are always given as fouls in Europe.
The game has moved on since those old days, and we need to give ourselves every chance by having the highest standards of playing surface, and referees who implement rules the same way as the rest of Europe.
REALSHOCKSMAY 25, 2018 at 15:50
2
0 Rate This
I agree with most of the points you raise, re Scotland lagging behind the rest of Europe, my interpretation of what you wrote.
However, there are the Rules of the game and also the spirit of the game.
A football fan should acknowledge witnessing a better team winning on the day, as long as his team made an effort to compete, with football tactics designed towards winning the game, or at least, not losing.
I have seen teams being applauded off the park after giving Celtic a footballing lesson at Celtic Park.
A Rai inspired PSG, for one.
Anyway, I will let it go now, as there are more important stuff for the blog to chew over.
We must be due another Statement!
FWIW I feel that managers complaining and girning is part and parcel of football. It can be a personality trait of the manager, Levein and McCann spring to mind here although Jim McLean in his heyday must surely be the king of greetin-faced managers, genius though he undoubtedly was, or can be calculated and effective,to provoke reaction,to deflect legitimate criticism, stir up opponents or to gain a psychological edge, Ferguson, Mourinho, although less so recently where he seems simply to complain ad nauseam, Jock Stein, Jock Wallace spring to mind.
Rarely is a genuine grievance resolved by managers beating their gums. Some managers don’t seem to complain at all,
Generally moaning from managers should largely be ignored on all sides, as invariably it produces vastly more heat than light.
8,000 x £50 = £400,000.
Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.
THOMTHETHIMMAY 25, 2018 at 15:47
Once again and agree with much of what you say but that is fine when you support a team winning all before it.
While the paying customer may well appreciate and enjoy watching the skills of Tierney and Dembele if you are on the other side of the fence then a hard won 1-0 nil slug fest against the Hoops provides far more customer satisfaction and viewed as ticket money well spent than feeling like leaving the ground with ten minutes to go in a 0-4 defeat from a silky opponent.
For all the talk of enjoying football the Celtic way, you would all take rough and tumble ground out results against the likes of Barca and PSG to get to a CL final everytime and would not give a toss if it were played on an ice ring.
Sometimes Hearts will give Celtic a footballing lesson like earlier this season but at most other times due to a lack of resources, injuries etc etc the rest of us have to do what we can, within the rules to get a result.
Despite Levein’s dour demeanor and cautious approach to the game I am sure he would rather be playing as entertaining football as possible on a bowling green. However at Hearts resources are limited and you don’t have the likes of Griffiths, Armstong and Sinclair warming the bench and are having to turn to untried youngsters and workhorses like Callachan to do you a turn. Therefore you sometimes have to do what you can to get some form of break.
I think we are both on the same page but just have a different view on how much importance is placed on the condition of the pitch in terms of how entertaining a game can be.
As you say bigger fish to fry so enough prattling on this subject and have a good weekend.
CO 16.23
The majority of season tickets are bought using either the 4 quarterly or 10 monthly payment plans.
No immediate financial boost to the club then.
Like several other clubs Rangers are simply putting their own fans first and rightly so.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
8,000 x £50 = £400,000. Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.
Ah but…
7000 x 600(season book cost?) = 4200000
What was that Close Bros. deal again?
WOTTPIMAY 25, 2018 at 16:46
****
In all honesty, I fully understand your p o v, re a manager wanting every edge he can.
However, how does that explain the SFA’s decision not to water the Hampden pitch at half time?
What was their motive?
Definitely out of the topic now. : > )
Morning all(still on Vegas time!).
slimjimMay 25, 2018 at 17:24
Don’t know how it works at Ibrox but ST purchases over 4 or 10 months are usually processed by way of a finance company “overdraft”.The club will receive 100% of the cash up front & the fan will pay back the loan plus interest to the finance company(Zebra?)over the agreed timespan.
Beggars the question,if/when Sevco go bust,who will pay the instalments due on STs bought on credit.It’ll be the fan as usual.They’ll just become creditors of the club/company.
Re. the two cheeks accusation
When there was no ibrox club in the top flight a number of cups were won by other clubs.
When a mediocer ibrox club reached the top flight celtic upped there game and became invinsibles. A stronger ibrox club saw celtic do an historical treble.And demolish the ibrox club in the prosess.
And no other clubs had a look in for trophies.
We often hear a need for a strong ibrox club.Would this not then see a much stronger celtic?
How will the ibrox fans who may believe this season they will be stronger take it if celtic turn up at ibrox with the majority of ibrox fans and celtic horse then on the way to 8 in a row.
Be careful what you wish for right enough.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
MAY 25, 2018 at 16:23
8,000 x £50 = £400,000. Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.
==========================================
No shirt sales, no money, they need the cash now.
Some people will pay in full, some will pay over four months.
Even the four month payments would be May, June, July and August presumably.
The earliest Celtic game would be what, August. So even those paying over four months brings the money in a lot earlier.
It’s cash flow FoF is correct.
TORREJOHNBHOY
MAY 25, 2018 at 17:46
=======================
That makes even more sense, if all the money comes in now.
They need it to keep afloat.
SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 17:24
CO 16.23The majority of season tickets are bought using either the 4 quarterly or 10 monthly payment plans.No immediate financial boost to the club then. Like several other clubs Rangers are simply putting their own fans first and rightly so.
—————————————————————————————————
TorreJohnBhoy has responded to how Zebra operate, but how can you say it is putting them first, when the reality would naturally be depriving them of a seat at Celtic Park.
What will the atmosphere be like at 1-0 down?, 2, or, 3?…..It will be empty before 4. It is wagon circling. A pathetic attempt to keep the Winchesters pointing outwards.
This board are on borrowed time in its present form and they know it.
CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 25, 2018 at 16:23
5
0 Rate This
8,000 x £50 = £400,000. Why Sevco need/want that money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.
———–
SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 17:24
1
2 Rate This
CO 16.23The majority of season tickets are bought using either the 4 quarterly or 10 monthly payment plans.No immediate financial boost to the club then. Like several other clubs Rangers are simply putting their own fans first and rightly so.
————————–
Why Sevco need/want that first 4 quarterly payment money now, rather than waiting until Celtic divvy up after match-day is a question worth asking.
The word from one of the administrators on follow follow is that Rangers are definitely releasing an orange strip for next season.
It would appear this is a big deal to the good people there and they are predicting record shirt sales when it is released.
Years ago my better half worked with the finance company that handled Oldcos ST applications.In those days,under SDM,the agreement was for 20 months but you could pay more than the minimum if you wished to pay your loan off quicker.For those who paid the minimum though,the cost of the ticket doubled.Add your next loan for the following season when you’ve still got 8 monthly payments to make on your 1st,then some folk really got in a mess.RFC(IL) though,received 100% up front.They also registered themselves as a broker & got 5% commission on every ticket sold.I wouldn’t be surprised if every club did this.
JIMBOMAY 25, 2018 at 00:42
Jimbo , buddy , sorry to disturb your firmament but that’s just how one supporter of a diddy club views it . Most of my siblings have CFC ST’s . I still pay for the TRFC-supporting daughter’s ST but not the CFC one – she has a bit more about her . It’s accepted – no whitabootery . I got lucky in that one of my grandfathers wanted company and took me , the oldest boy , to see Maryhill Juniors , Maryhill Harp (my uncle was manager/coach) and the Mighty Jags . At school , I went with mates to both Celtic Park and Ibrox Stadium without prejudice from anywhere – just a gang of boys . I go to every Scotland match I can manage , even when I’m scunnered with the whole corrupt organisation . I’ve been to a lot more foreign countries following them than I ever would following my club . Our views of our respective clubs are bound to differ , but at the end of the day it’s only a game to me . I’m up for next season and will renew again despite knowing that we’ll probably have to be lucky to get near promotion . Onwards and upwards !
Cheers Paddy.
The poster who has been having a go at me doesn’t understand things. I explained it a few weeks ago after the latest snide comments against me by JJ.
That was the context of my incoherent post. I’m not going back into it. I admit it hurts when JJ says things against me because I used to think highly of him. Donated plenty. I was defending myself.
I don’t have a dual personality. I was making the comparison between what JJ thinks of me and the actuality. The post which ‘lavished praise’ on me – I never read. If it was under my moniker I can’t explain that. I only have one account. One laptop. Ask BP or Tris.
I would do away with the TDs. The amount of harmless posts getting TDs is horrible. Just TUs would be good. Award them or ignore them.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 25, 2018 at 18:25
3
0 Rate This
The word from one of the administrators on follow follow is that Rangers are definitely releasing an orange strip for next season.
————–Will that be their european kit?
If they are out of europe before it is released.I hope there are record sales.
How humiliating will it be to be seen in one.The strip that never made it to europe.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL 18.14
The majority of Rangers fans would rather put money into their own club than pay £49 a ticket for Celtic park.
Your second point is irrelevant as it is based on a hypothetical situation.
The board may indeed “know it”, you don’t.
SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 19:27
————–
It must be the minority then that sell out there allocation to see their team play at celtic park
CLUSTER ONE.
They will still sell out their allocation at CP.
This however will enable them to sell 8,000 more tickets for Rangers fans at Ibrox.
These 8,000 fans will spend more money on merchandise, catering, programmes etc.
More Rangers supporters at the game. More revenue being generated for the club.
What’s not to like?.
CRownstbhoy
your 7000 x 600 figure is not applicable since the same seat will have been sold as season tickets without the right to attend TRFC CFC games. The net effect might be slightly negative depending on how much a Celtic supporter pays for his two tickets compared to the difference between a with CFC season book compared to the without CFC season book, I see figures bandied about of £49 pounds per ticket for CFC fans so £98 for two games compared to the figures for two games on a season book.
Helpumoot-Apologies for any offence, as I tried to say I find Jimbo inoffensive if a bit off beam, cantankerousness is the martial art at which I have the best qualification , I have learned from an Uncle who is now 88 and shows no sign of mellowing.
I see that the pope of the plagiarirsts has moved onto literary criticism by copying John Clark’s letter to Mr Maxwell and commenting how he would improve it. Perhaps he has been adding thumbs down here to posts which do not meet his self acclaimed literary standards of wide vocabulary and profound learning. In my experience those truly of such learning rarely claim it tending more to self deprecation or modesty. Although I feel sorry for the lad for a variety of reasons, at the same time I find his swings from one view of other sites to its opposite like a fast cycling bi-polar sufferer (that is only a simile no more no less) gruesomely fascinating.
Slimjim
See my comment above for another view on the balance of revenue with/without Celtic supporters.
You might have a point about secondary spend but again that might not be as big a difference as it might first appear. If these “extra supporters” are from adding two games to existing season books the additional secondary spend might be minimal since they already have 36 games to buy fans accoutrements. As to catering, the differences would only be substantial if Celtic supporters were boycotting the food outlets and/or TRFC supporters eat more junk food at games than their CFC counterparts. I used to do work connected to these kinds of projections in some cases for pretty mad projects it was not difficult to jalouis that the proposed British National Fishhook Museum was unlikely to be a great money spinner (boom boom for you anglers)
SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 19:44
These 8,000 fans will spend more money on merchandise, catering, programmes etc.More Rangers supporters at the game. More revenue being generated for the club.What’s not to like?.
—————-
You sound a bit like David Murray there SJ.
———
fans go to his ground and cause damage.
”They don’t buy our programmes or eat our fast food. But they do
smash our seats,” he said.
Rangers also say that they have to pay an added #12,000 on their
police bill when Celtic visit. Mr Murray does not fear a backlash with
Celtic refusing to give tickets to Rangers’ fans. He knows, of course,
that Celtic, who are more than #5m in debt, cannot afford to go without
the money generated by Rangers’ supporters.
Mr Murray also knows he can sell out Ibrox when Celtic play even
without their supporters.
There is no law in the game which states that clubs must give their
opponents tickets and Mr Peter Donald, secretary of the Scottish League,
said: ”It is most unfortunate and there is no doubt that part of
football’s attraction is the atmosphere which can be generated by
supporters of opposing clubs.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12700261.Ibrox_ban_on_Celtic_fans/
——————
He knows, of course,
that Celtic, who are more than #5m in debt, cannot afford to go without
the money generated by Rangers’ supporters……..Oh Dear.
Depending on how devilish they feel , either one of the Cheeky boys could sell100 tickets of their allocation to their fans and hand back the residue at the last minute , leaving the other 700 unsold and leaving the host club with a deficit of £35k . Segregation would mean that the seats couldn’t be sold to home fans, wouldn’t it ?
I have a bright orange Run365 top, which is envied by some TRFC supporting mates , but they decline to buy one for themselves for fear of upsetting folk for not putting money into the club .. I don’t think that is a healthy state of affairs .
BFBPUZZLED
MAY 25, 2018 at 19:46
================================
In all honesty I got fed up with the discussion re moving Celtic Supporters out of the Broomloan stand. It all gets too complicated to try to discuss.
Some of the people in that stand have all games tickets, they are therefore entitled to go to the Celtic games. That means some of the seats elsewhere have to preclude the Celtic games, so that the people in the Broomloan can get their seat for Celtic games.
As I see it this will mean that everyone in the Broomloan stand will now be allowed to “upgrade” to all games. The people elsewhere will also get to “upgrade” and won’t have to miss those games so the people from the Broomloan can take their seats.
Given that Rangers claim to sell out most games anyway, with either season tickets, Celtic supporters in the Broomloan or matchday tickets to Rangers supporters there is no extra income to be had. It’s a specious argument.
If you already sell out then if anything selling more season tickets mean you generate less income. People expect to pay less for a season ticket than buying a matchday ticket for every game.
Seriously, it isn’t an income issue in my opinion, it’s a cashflow one. They need the money now, not more later in the season.
CLUSTER ONE 20.10
“You sound a bit like David Murray there sj”
I have had more than a few insults thrown at me on here but you have just moved into first place with that one.
Reference the ticket allocation I am more than happy not to give £100 a year to the Ibrox club. IMO this will have a negative effect on the atmosphere which suits me. SKY will not be happy as seeing the very few away fans as this game is sold on its unique atmosphere. Hopefully viewing figures will drop as it will lose some of its appeal to neutral fans.
Funny how they never brought this up during their winning years of the old Ibrox club.
SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 20:58
—————–
I have been trying to tone down the language for some time now.
Oh well back to the Drawing board
VALENTINES CLOWN 21.08
More than happy not to receive your £100 and instead have a Rangers supporter sitting in your seat. I don’t think it will have a negative effect on the atmosphere at all. Barca-Madrid, Boca- River Plate, Galatasaray-Fenerbahce for example all have away supports numbered in the hundreds with no adverse effect on the atmosphere.
The much talked about “special atmosphere” at Celtic park for Champions League games is somehow achieved without a large visiting support is it not?.
Nothing to do with”cash flow problems” or a “immediate need” for the revenue imo. There have been meetings regarding this issue between the club and supporters for a number of months, and it seems that the club have actually taken the fans views on board and acted accordingly.
CLUSTER ONE
You failed in that case.
SLIMJIMMAY 25, 2018 at 21:29
What if they charge celtic fans £5 a head to get in to see the last 20 min as most of the home support will be gone by then
ok i’ll get my coat
slimjim May 25, 2018 at 19:44
CLUSTER ONE. They will still sell out their allocation at CP. This however will enable them to sell 8,000 more tickets for Rangers fans at Ibrox. These 8,000 fans will spend more money on merchandise, catering, programmes etc. More Rangers supporters at the game. More revenue being generated for the club. What’s not to like?.
===========================
I would think that the financial gain will be marginal. Rangers average (paid) attendance in the league was around 49,000 last season. With no increase in the physical capacity of Ibrox, the average attendance will remain much the same.
There may be a modest saving in security costs, but that will be offset by the discount that the new ST holders receive against the standard ticket prices for walk ups that they took up last season.
Cluster OneMay 25, 2018 at 17:58
Re. the two cheeks accusation When there was no ibrox club in the top flight a number of cups were won by other clubs. When a mediocer ibrox club reached the top flight celtic upped there game and became invinsibles.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This goes back to the PMG anti heated driveway campaign and the behaviour of TRFC Directors at the Semi.
But it is so patronising. It makes it sound like Celtic up to then were only half trying, wining the League and not the Cups but grabbing the Euro riches.
It was almost like a business was happy with its returns on capital but personal insults drove them to spend and dominate.
Who now are the triumphalists and in what battle?
CLUSTER ONEYou failed in that case.
—————
If you try to fail,and succeed.which have you done.
i love that quote and SJ just reminded me of it.
slimjimMay 25, 2018 at 19:27
CORRUPT OFFICIAL 18.14 The majority of Rangers fans would rather put money into their own club than pay £49 a ticket for Celtic park. Your second point is irrelevant as it is based on a hypothetical situation. The board may indeed “know it”, you don’t.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To ask for £49 for a ticket for a football match is a disgrace to every football fan in Scotland. But hey ho – there are thems that pay it!
BOGS DOLLOX 22.05
Has been common practice for many years that the two clubs charge a identical amount for visiting supporters.
I agree that £49 for a game, any game, is far too much . As long as the fans continue to pay it however there will be no change.
Regarding the unilateral decision of The Rangers to break with decades of tradition in order to pander to their fan base – Good. It underlines again that there is no longer any “Old Firm”.
Where it might be an issue – and one that may affect Scottish football as a whole (as another poster pointed out) is how this may affect TV rights. The reason that there is such a great atmosphere (sic) at Rangers Celtic is that there is such a significant number of Away fans- based on the past few games the TV rights aren’t valuable on competitiveness – so if the atmosphere is lessened, the spectacle is lessened and the value is lessened.
Brendan Rodgers has MON’s myopia – if Celtic get humped 6-1 he will focus on the positives. As a Celtic fan I don’t give a rat’s @ss about the pitch – we expect to win every game (knowing we won’t before someone accuses me of arrogance). He said something that may or may not benefit Celtic in the future – much as Levein had a bash at Brown – big deal – but in truth he would do the same thing. Gamesmanship? Hypocrisy? Eye of the Beholder…
jockybhoyMay 25, 2018 at 22:54
‘..Regarding the unilateral decision of The Rangers to break with decades of tradition ..’
________________________
Come, come, jockybhoy!
TRFC Ltd have not been around for even one decade!
There has not been time for them to have built up much in the way of a ‘tradition’ of their own.
They poach on a now defunct club’s history and ‘tradition’, claiming falsely that they are that club, while simultaneously claiming Not to be that club.
But I know what you mean.
The ticket allocation is a sooperb squirrel from Level42, IMO.
As a football obsessed kid, I had ‘absolutely’ no motivation to attend an Old Firm game, for obvious reasons.
I take my wife and daughters to any CFC home game when possible. They love the experience.
I would never take them to a CFC v. TRFC game.
My wife and daughters wouldn’t want to attend either.
But, if there are no TRFC fans – or tiny numbers – then I would happily take my family.
…so, erm, well done the Ibrox club/company?! 🙂
Surely if anyone is going to complain about a remark made years ago by a person who is now on the SFA board,then it should rightly be the current operators of the club in question,BDO?.
It’s hard to see what benefit sevco will gain by restricting Celtic’s allocation to 800.If the ticket price is £49, then sevco receive, in cash, £392k for each game from Celtic.
sevco’s average attendance is maxed out at 49k per home game.I have no figures for last year, but the previous year they had 43k season tickets.For every home game they had 6k “pay on the day” punters.The cheapest ticket (2016 numbers) is £24. So say an average of £30.That’s 6,000 * £30 = £180k cash. 18 home games is roughly, £3 million.
A season ticket can be paid:1) In full by cash, cheque or credit card.2) Four monthly installments by credit card.3) Four or ten monthly installments via Zebra Finance.
I am going to brazenly use the 80/20 rule and suggest that 20% of punters pay by method 1.Sevco has the highest season ticket price in the league by a country mile at £660. So say an average of the rich punters paying cash willbe 20% of 49,000 * 500 = £5 million (very roughly) in cash before the first game.
Again, brazenly, i would suggest that 20% of the remainder pay by method 2.That would be 7,840 punters whose money goes stright to Metro Bank. That is 25% of a cheaper ticket price of, say, £400.That generates 7,840 * 25% * 400 = £784k cash.
That leaves 31,350 punters whos payment won’t come out until after 1 month. I’ve no idea when sevco will receive this in cash in the bank. Mayve 1 month later?
That number by the way would be roughly 31,350 * 360 = £11 million for the year.sevco gate receipts and hospitality for 30th June 2017 was £21.6 millionMy numbers (rounded) give £5m + £3m + 11m = £19m plus (6,000 * 18 * 30) = £3m for a grand total of £22 million. So in the right ball park even for the back of a fag packet.
Initial cash generated is roughly £6m for a business with running costs of perhaps £2m per month during the Close season.Pun intended!
If 6,000 punters buy a season ticket at an average price of £360 that gives an income of £2.16m which is less than the £3m they get already.But I would suggest that the 6k is made up of a larger number who come and go as finances dictate.The £800k they get from Celtic is essentially lost. They would have to claw back the lost revenue by raising the season ticketprice to include the Celtic games.
Of course, reducing sevco’s allocation at home would put them in a similar quandary.Far better would be to allocate 8,000 tickets at £60! Cash or credit card payable to CFC ltd.
It’s late. I have an iphone calculator, a pencil and a piece of bog roll. So feel free to trash the numbers!
What if a letter goes out to the ST holders in the used to be celtic section offering a two match package for the celtic games £98 paid for ASAP .
Or an offer on the web-site (couple of quid cheaper).If so I think we will have found the real reason for the staunch stance
It would be interesting to know police Scotland’s position on DKs latest wheeze .
Has any of the stenographers bothered to ask or have they been told by the puppet master not to go there just now .
Anyone know if any of the redtops have approached the police to give their take on it
FAN OF FOOTBALL
MAY 26, 2018 at 08:22
====================================
I don’t see what difference it makes. If they can host Aberdeen / Hibs / Hearts etc supporters in that area why would it be any different for Celtic.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 26, 2018 at 08:33
I get your point my worry is that when this idea was being pursued by the sevco support previously ,it was stated that the police were against it for safety reasons .
Was this a genuine risk or was it an excuse by the club to maintain the policy at that time .
What I would like to know is ,
If it was indeed blocked by the police for safety reasons then what has happened to change the risk
If there was never any objections from the police ,then why this move and why now ?
There is a lot of talk over govan way of DKs intention to bring out and orange strip next season ,if correct then I think he is aiming to drag this fixture into something that Scottish football can very much do without .
I have always thought the security thing and safety certificate was a con.
If I asked the question, what is the safest way to have 8,000 Celtic supporters in Ibrox Stadium the answer may well be put them in the Broomloan stand.
However if I ask the question, is there any reason why we can’t have 1,000 (or whatever) Celtic supporters in the away section, the answer may well be no.
I see no reason why 1,000 Celtic supporters cannot be in the Ibrox away section, it is done for every other club which visits. So it must be possible to get them in and out of the ground and provide adequate segregation during the game.
Just out of interest, and apologies if someone has already posted it. This is Dave King’s position which FoF was talking about
Mastermind Barry Ferguson with another stunning piece of logic – depriving CFC fans of tickets will hand Gerard funds to strengthen his team.
Does he honestly believes this will help him seriously challenge for the SPL title next season?
Meantime, what will Celtic do with their increased revenue from having more of their own supporters able to attend games v Sevco at Parkhead? Hand it over to TRFC (in liquidation) as a spirit of goodwill to assist them back to their (rightful – aye right!) place at the top of the Scottish game?
Wake up and smell the coffee Barry.
Rangers average attendance was reported as over 49,000 last year.
How many more does Barry think will attend. Bearing in mind the first thing will be making up for the £49 tickets which will presumably be cut to c1,000 from the c8,000 it currently is.
I think there are several reasons why GASL has opted to do this with the Away allocation when Celtic come to pump them.
1 They are getting scunnert watching the Hoops celebrate with the traveling support at the end of every home game as it rubs in just how far behind they are on the Park
2 By sticking our Support in a corner and reducing our numbers it makes it far more in timal dating for our Support and less likely any atmosphere is going to be generated as they the great unwashed go through their usual songbook
3 Kings attitude towards Celtic is the same as it is towards any Organisation that shows him up for what what he actually is.
Its his way of sticking the finger up at the men who run the most successful Club in Scotland
4 Last but not least he is pandering to the rather large numpty element of the “The 2angers” Support in order to curry favour with them as he spins the plates in the Ibroke Finances Department.
The signing of Gerrard,the messing with the TOP and now messing with Celtic it all comes down to the same thing.
Keeping the pretence up that
1 Rangers still exists
2 They are still relevant in the big scheme of things.
The next set of Accounts should be very interesting.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 26, 2018 at 08:33
I don’t see what difference it makes. If they can host Aberdeen / Hibs / Hearts etc supporters in that area why would it be any different for Celtic.
==========================
I take your point, although I wouldn’t want to be there. There is no monopoly on idiots following football clubs and every club has their share. I have had the same seat at Celtic Park since the Lisbon Lions stand was built and it is not a million miles from where the Rangers support sit. If there are less of them at the next game there is less chance of me being hit by £1 or £2 coins. It’s only a few idiots of course, but a £2 coin thrown from height has the potential to cause significant injury. At the last game at Celtic Park the guy next to me got hit twice by £2 coins. luckily he was unharmed, and he was going to use them to buy his first pint after the game!
JUSTTHEFACTS 10.11
1 The losing teams supporters don’t usually stay to watch the celebrations of the winners do they?
2 i dare say that the soapdodgers will go through their usual pro terrorist songbook despite numbers being cut. (if TGU is given the ok so should the SD, neither should btw)
3 In what way is this giving the “finger” to the Celtic owners?
4 Imagine DK actually listening to the people who contribute the largest amount of the turnover.
Slimjim on May 26, 2018 at 10:39
1: Fair point, though many supporters (and all in the Directors’ box) do stay for the whole game.
2: Whatboutery.
3: You know fine well: this is grandstanding by Dave King: playing to the lowest common denominator amongst the seemingly endlessly gullible fans of The Rangers*.
4: See 3, above.
Appendix: this short-termist wheeze by King will back fire spectacularly when he has to try undo this petty stunt in the near future. Although maybe he figures that the odds of him being around to have to deal with same are slim-to-non-existent.
DUNDERHEID 11.47
As i said previously there have been meetings between supporters and the club going back many months on the subject of the allocation given to Celtic. I doubt whether DK played any part in these discussions and as far as i’m aware didn’t attend any of them personally.
They were conducted primarily by Stewart Robertson but the recent appointment of Douglas Park to Vice-chairman will have played a pivotal role in this decision i think you’ll find.
Any time frame on DK departing?, and can you give a reason for this backfiring in the near future?.
CLUSTER ONEMAY 25, 2018 at 21:27
I have been trying to tone down the language for some time now.
————–
Please note fellow posters,and try the same
CLUSTER ONE 12.19
Totally agree CO. In my own defence i have tried to be civil and reply to as many posts as time allows since arriving on the site. My use of language was unbecoming of this site and rather clumsily fashioned to highlight a equally odious reference to Rangers fans from JTF. I apologise unreservedly for the use of such language which is not in my everyday vocabulary.
SLIMJIMMAY 26, 2018 at 12:51
———
We are all adults.And i thought one or two posts were going down a road that there was no need to.Not trying to be a moderator or anything,but just incase anyone is looking in and having a read,what would they think?
Now i think i may get a stern look,a drop of the eyebrows and a “Hey! clussy we do the moderating around here”
Megalomania killed Rangers.
It will do for the tribute act too.
just a matter of when and not if.
I say this because I have read and heard so many times this unfounded claim that the current Club playing out of the Crumbledome should be “Back at the top of Scottish Fitba where it belongs”
I see two main faults within this way of thinking:
1 Celtic have dominated proceedings over the past 50 years when it comes to the main prizes.
2 The last Club that tried to change this ended up in Liquidation trying to end it.
Take away the EBT years and it doesn’t really make for good reading at all when you look at it.
As a Celtic man I am more concerned about our European performance than anything else if I am honest?
like Jock Stein once said.If you build a side good enough for Europe then Scotland will take care of itself.
Celtic are currently in a position we haven’t been in for a long time now financially and I have a strong feeling this Summer is going to see a level of investment in players not seen since the O’Neill era at the Club.
There is absolutely hee haw King and his delusional support can do to change that. ?
Sure it’s a grand old team ?
Less than six years ago Andy Robertson then at Queens park tweeted …
life at this age is rubbish with no money #needajob
(Dbhoy, CQN)
Tonight he’s playing in the CL final!
Wasn’t bothered either way who wins. I feel inclined towards Liverpool now, for AR’s sake if nothing else.
SLIMJIMMAY 26, 2018 at 12:11
As i said previously there have been meetings between supporters and the club going back many months on the subject of the allocation given to Celtic. I doubt whether DK played any part in these discussions and as far as i’m aware didn’t attend any of them personally.They were conducted primarily by Stewart Robertson but the recent appointment of Douglas Park to Vice-chairman will have played a pivotal role in this decision i think you’ll find.
====================
Really? Douglas Park has an excellent business relationship with Celtic and has had for decades. This was even discussed at the last Celtic AGM. Personally I believe a pressing need for cash, and cash now lies behind Rangers decision.
bfbpuzzled
CRownstbhoyyour 7000 x 600 figure is not applicable…
Sorry, I understood they sold about 42000 last season. With demand this season expected to be 49000 (as a result of their minimising away ticket sales) is that not an increase of 7000 season books and hence a supposed guaranteed income boost?