Over the past couple of years, we have built a healthy, vibrant and influential community which recognises the need to counter the corporate propaganda spouted by the mainstream media on behalf of the football authorities.
The media have, not entirely but in the main, been hostage to the patronage of those in charge of the club/media links, and to the narrow demographic of their readership. Despite a continuing rejection of the media’s position by that readership (in terms of year on year slump in sales) there is an obstinate refusal to see what is by now inevitable – the death of the print media. The lamb metaphor in fact ironically moving to the slaughter.
The football authorities in Scotland, once the country that gave the world the beautiful game, are rigid with fear that their own world will fall apart – because they are wedded to the idea that only one football match actually matters. To that end they will do whatever it takes to ensure that it continues. They have long since dispensed with the notion that football is an interdependent industry, and incredibly, even those who are not participants in that match follow like sheep towards the abattoir.
The argument is no longer that one club cheated and got away with it. The debate that we need to have is one about what is paramount in the eyes of the clubs and the media . Is it the inegrity of sporting endeavour, or box-office?
For out part, independent sites like this have accelerated the print media’s demise, and there have been temporary successes in persuading the clubs to uphold the spirit of sport. However our role has up to now been to cast a spotlight on the inaccuracies, inconsistencies and downright lies that routinely pass for news. News that is imagined up by PR agencies and dutifully copied by the lazy pretend-journalists who betray no thought whatsoever during the process.
Despite our successes, it really is not enough. We have the means at our disposal to do more, but do more we need to change ourselves, because the authorities sure as hell aren’t gonna.
We need to provide meaningful insight into the game that removes the Old Firm prism from the light path. We need to provide news that has covered all of the angles. We need to entertain, inform and energise fans of sport and all clubs.
We need to do that from a wholly independent perspective. None of this refusing to tell the truth about club allegiances. There is no reason why intelligent men and women can’t be objective in spite of their own allegiances (although the corollary absolutely holds true). Our experience of the MSM in this country is that the lack of arms-length principles in the media has corrupted it to such an extent that they barely recognise truth and objectivity. We need to be firm on those arms-length principles.
In order to do that we have put together a plan (with enough room to manoeuvre if required) as follows;
We will rebrand and re-launch as the Independent Sports Monitor. We have acquired the domains isMonitor.co.uk and IndependentSportsMonitor.co.uk, and those will be the main urls after the re-launch, hopefully later in the summer.
The change in name reflects the reality of our current debate which is not always confined to Scotland or football. It will also give us the option in future of applying the success of our model to other sports and jurisdictions through partner sites and blogs. This should also help in our efforts to raise funds in the future. However any expansion outwith the domain of Scottish football is some time away, and will depend on the success we have with the core model.
Our mission statement will be;
- ISM will seek to build a community of sports fans whose overarching aim is the integrity of competition in the sport.
- ISM will, without favour, seek to find objective truths on the conduct and administration of sport. We will avoid building relationships with individuals or organisations which would bring us into conflict with that.
- ISM will provide a platform for the views of ALL fans, and guarantee that those views will be heard in a mutually respectful environment.
- ISM will also endeavour to inform and entertain members on a wide range of topics related to our shared love of sport.
- ISM will seek to represent the views of sports fans to sporting authorities and hold the authorities to account.
We have estimated our (modest) costs to expand our role as per recent discussions. The expanded role will take the form of a new Internet Radio Channel where we hope to provide 24/7 content by the end of the year. It will also see a greater news role where we will engage directly with clubs and authorities to seek answers to our questions directly. And we will seek to contact the best fan sites across Scotland with a view to showcasing their content.
We have identified individuals who we want to work (initially on a part time basis) towards our objectives, we have identified premises where we want to conduct our business, and we hope to move into those premises during this summer.
To finance these plans there are a couple of stages;
- Initially (as soon as possible) we need to pay accommodation and hosting costs for the first year. To do so, we hope to appeal to the community itself. Our aim is to raise around £5000 by the end of August.
- There are salary costs (around £15,000) attached to our first year plan, but these have been underwritten by Big Pink, and equipment costs (est. £3000). These will be reimbursed if the advertising campaign we recently started bears any fruit (we will not know about that for a few months).
- It will not be too discouraging if we make losses in the first couple of years, so if necessary we will seek crowd-funding to finance our plans if the resources of the community itself prove inadequate to smooth a path to break-even point.
Our first year may be a perilous hand-to-mouth existence, but I am certain the journey will be an exciting and enjoyable one. We will also need to search our community resources for contacts at clubs; players, officials, ex-players, local journalists etc. Please get in touch if you have any in at your club.
We also hope to tap into the expertise of our community for advice, comment and analysis of developments, and we will be looking for any aspiring presenters, journalists, sound and video editors, graphic designers (and lots of others) to help us find our feet. Any offers of assistance would be gratefully accepted.
We mustn’t lose sight of why we are doing this. It is because we love our sport, because we want to be able to continue to call it that, and because the disconnect we find in Scottish football, that of the conflicting interests of the fans and the money men, will never be addressed as long as the fans are hopelessly split.
The ultimate goal is to allow sport – not our individual clubs – to triumph over the greed and corporate troglodyte-ism of those people who run it. I am confident that we as a community desperately want to be able to make a difference. That is why I am confident we can achieve our aim of becoming a significant player in the game.
Recently there have been more and more links to other blogs appearing on the site. As a general rule, we welcome the association with other blogs and online content, and I think that the people involved are fairly phlegmatic when sometimes those posts are removed (as per our usual moderation policy).
Many blogs don’t allow links at all, but it seems a bit drastic and unproductive to go down that route. I am a bit concerned though that these items are appearing more and more often. Now that SFM is trying to increase it readership and traffic, it is especially problematic for us that clicking on these links doesn’t provide a way back to SFM itself.
Could we ask that anyone who wants to draw attention to something they have written elsewhere should transcribe it in full on SFM, and provide a link at the end of the article to their own blog’s home page. We would also be very happy to feature external pieces as guest blogs on SFM from time to time.
We are not trying to either discourage restrict access to anyone’s here – quite the opposite. We are just trying to avoid our own reach being shortened.
Thanks for your understanding guys.
This is a novel idea, any chance it might catch on ?
http://www.leedsunited.com/news/article/2clxjh7wr4nu15yxnx3n0e4pe/title/statement-club-re-purchases-catering
paddy malarkey says:
Member: (59 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 12:35 am
I noticed from the link that DCK has an upcoming significant birthday . Mibbes he’ll unveil his present to TRFC fans then ?
================
Well, remember when we discovered that – according to Companies House – our old friend Craig Whyte / White had 2 birth dates ?
In that case…how many birth dates does the gl!b one have ?
Can’t you just make external links always open a new page/tab, thereby NOT leaving the TSFM page at all? It’s a relatively simple change to the HTML tag
John Clark ~ try ‘Ctrl-Alt-A’ for your ‘ á ‘
Dave King and his gang say they will do whatever it takes. In the absence of seriously moneyed and seriously deluded funders, what it takes is austerity. And they are apparently doing what it takes.
I begin to think that I may have misunderstood a previous spoken declaration of King’s. I thought he talked about overinvesting in the Rangers. I realise now that what he may actually have said was that he was over investing in them.
John Clark says:
Member: (995 comments)
July 14, 2015 at 10:55 pm
The link below is to a chart for symbols not on your keyboard.
http://www.theasciicode.com.ar/ascii-printable-characters/space-ascii-code-32.html
Find the character you want, then while holding down the Alt key type the number of the character, when you release the Alt key the symbol will appear.
Edit. There are a couple of charts with some slight
differences on them. The language your PC is set up to decides which chart it uses.
We are all SoS here Supporters of Spence that is!
Traynor being a boorish arse when he worked with Annie McGuire and Jim Spence is hardly news to anyone who listened to Radio Scotland, JC. Neither is the fact that his professional opinion on the legal status of The Rangers has a chameleon-like ability to match the view of whoever’s paying him. Like you, I’d be interested to hear an insider’s view of company policy regarding how they dealt with presenting the Rangers story. I’m sure Lionel Shriver wouldn’t object to a book called We Need To Talk About Rangers.
Wishful thinking I suppose, because it seems the proposed topic for discussion is Gate-sharing, the premise presumably being that’s had a huge impact on diddy clubs winning the league. The reality is that there have been two golden periods for diversity of league winners, 1891-1904 and 1947-1966 (and we all know what happened next). Both periods were still dominated by one or both Glasgow clubs but others at least thinking they had a chance must surely have been better than the current monopoly and former duopoly.
Double-take 🙂
Does Mike know?
https://www.facebook.com/BCFCofficial?fref=photo
blu says:
Member: (196 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 10:18 am
John Clark says:
Member: (995 comments)
July 14, 2015 at 10:55 pm
Like you, I’d be interested to hear an insider’s view of company policy regarding how they [the BBC] dealt with presenting the Rangers story.
___________________________________________
In my opinion, one word – cowardice – would pretty much cover it.
A policy is only as effective as the humans who are responsible for applying it.
That’s the main thing for me which has become strikingly apparent from the ongoing Rangers/Sevco/The Rangers debacle.
And you can substitute ‘rules’ and ‘the law’ for policy as well
I knew a BBC R5 match commentator (his parents lived next door) during the years of magical realism and used to chat to him a few times a year. He’s no longer in the job.
At the time of the creative valuation of Ibrox to mask what looked even then like certain insolvency (2003?), I asked this BBC man why the corporation wasn’t getting to grips with the story. He said: “Rangers are institutionally protected.” He would not be drawn further.
burghGer says:
Member: (44 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 10:24 am
=====================
burghGer, they may have been a worthy group of the highest integrity but the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee had no locus in determining the legal status of RFC (IL). EDIT: Check out the documents of 5th November 2012: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC004276/filing-history
Esteban says:
Member: (113 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 10:50 am
That “Institutional Protection” has done, and continues to do, great harm to Rangers. Instead of abusing and bullying reporters, like Jim Spence, for daring to question the Media Group Think, Rangers fans should be applauding them, and demanding that the rest of the lamb munchers follow suit.
Ironically, whatever the motivation behind the coverage of Celtic’s pre-Fergus woes, the hearse and the rest of it, did much to galvanise the Celtic support into action, and as a result contributed greatly to Celtic’s survival.
One has to wonder, if Young, Traynor, Spiers, Jackson et al, had adopted a similar attitude even ten years ago, if burghGer’s team would be in the mess it is now.
Personally, I think not.
scottc says:
Member: (194 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 6:27 am
Trisidium says:
Moderator: (246 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 1:21 am
“Can’t you just make external links always open a new page/tab, thereby NOT leaving the TSFM page at all? It’s a relatively simple change to the HTML tag”
——————————————-
Provided you are using a PC:-
If you right click the link you will get a box giving you the following choices
Open
Open in a new tab
Open in a new window
Etc…
Select the one you want and you can click back and forth between SFM and new tab/window
Using a tablet (nexus) as soon as you click the link a new tab is opened.
“Rangers are institutionally protected.”
Had anyone made such a comment publicly in 2003 they would have been derided and labelled “Paranoid”.
Now, it is the only rational explanation for the favourable treatment extended to the Ibrox club . Slowly but surely the damn is beginning to break and the ensuing flood may wash it clean or sweep it away altogether ,
Today in “The Herald” the BBC’s ‘own-trumpet-blowing’ report on audience figures is quoted.
Among the other bumph there is this: “On February 1 the first Old firm match for nearly two years…”
They are so bloody determined to keep the myth going in defiance of Truth.
Why don’t they simply say : ‘the match between The Rangers FC and Celtic was watched by…..’? They do not have to lie: just use the proper legal name of the club that was founded in 2012.
Their use of ‘old firm’ is inappropriate, misleading, and in my opinion, insultingly biased.
Scotland needs a truthful, unbiased, publicly funded national broadcasting service that is not in thrall to any minority section of the tax-paying public.
Paradisebhoy says:
Member: (14 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm
The primary duty of any journalist is telling truth to power, however unpalatable. In failing to meet that obligation, they fail their readers, themselves and society as a whole. That duty is why Journalism lives in a “protected space”, and why attempts to limit that space should be resisted.
Journalism does not exist to protect the fecking establishment, its a vital part of the checks and balances that protect the rest of us.
Please excuse the typo in my last comment – I , of course , meant the DAM was breaking . But now I think of it maybe it was one of those Freudian slips ! 😯
Blu
Wishful thinking I suppose, because it seems the proposed topic for discussion is Gate-sharing, the premise presumably being that’s had a huge impact on diddy clubs winning the league. The reality is that there have been two golden periods for diversity of league winners, 1891-1904 and 1947-1966 (and we all know what happened next). Both periods were still dominated by one or both Glasgow clubs but others at least thinking they had a chance must surely have been better than the current monopoly and former duopoly.
………………………..
My own opinion on Gate Sharing
As I see it self proclaimed Diddy teams
Always seem to want half the gate
Why I always ask myself?
The reasons they give is that if they get half the money they can afford a better and more attractive team (perhaps and a good point)
The reality is that the majority of teams in Scotland have been going for 70+ years
Have brought in and squandered/pocketed millions of pounds and blame their problems on the so called Big teams & so called old firm
Let’s take Kilmarnock (no offence to kille fans great stadium and ran reasonably well) for example
They get to a semi/Final of a cup and demand 20k+seats
actually I agree they should get half the stadium so should any team
They either sell these seats or as near as dam it and good on them ?
The question the fans should be asking themselves is we’re are the 20k+ when they are playing at home in the league?
Why do they and other clubs need my money to fund their team?
They are not my team
I help fund my team by buying merchandise and tickets to see MY team
Ask yourselves why should the money of 20-30k fans at parkhead or 10-20k at pittodrie go to another club?
Most fans pay their money to there club to See their club/team
Yes more fans turn up when teams are playing better quality teams or teams they have never or very rearly play like teams from Europe but these are 1 offs
The question and debate should not be about Gate Sharing especially for the boards/owners of clubs
But how to get the 20k+ who turn up at Finals to turn up at league games
What I am trying to say is why leech off of others Instead of depending on yourself?
Tin hat on
Bunker locked ??
upthehoops says:
Member: (781 comments)
July 14, 2015 at 5:37 pm
============================
uth, better put than my effort. Thumbs up.
tcup 2012 says:
Member: (279 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 12:46 pm
============================
tcup, some strong opinions there, I personally wouldn’t want to describe the majority of clubs’ fans as leeches, but hey ho. Rather than engage and perhaps deliver a spoiler on this subject (and apologies for raising it at all), I think I’ll wait and see where the discussion with Trisidium, Big Pink and Jim Spence goes in a few weeks time.
woodstein says:
July 15, 2015 at 12:18 pm
“Can’t you just make external links always open a new page/tab, thereby NOT leaving the TSFM page at all? It’s a relatively simple change to the HTML tag”
——————————————-
Provided you are using a PC:-
If you right click the link you will get a box giving you the following choices
Open
Open in a new tab
Open in a new window
Etc…
Select the one you want and you can click back and forth between SFM and new tab/window
Using a tablet (nexus) as soon as you click the link a new tab is opened.
……………………………………………………..
Not quite.
On an Ipad if you touch and HOLD the link, in due course the same/similar menu pops up.
I’d have thought Nexus could do that, too.
tcup 2012 says:
Member: (279 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 12:46 pm
😆 Hope the hard hat is comfy!
Where to start. Yes, I get your point. Yes I sympathise, and to quite some extent I agree. My club are doing pretty well just now, I believe the season ticket sales for the upcoming season are higher than ever before. That’s fantastic, so why should we share that financial boost with anyone else?!
But then I go back to looking at that big picture.
See, around this time of year all the “smaller” teams get derided in the press and by folk like John Collins for letting Scotland down. That’s why Aberdeen, St Johnstone, ICT and Celtic have to start their Euro campaigns so early. As an aside, I think its awful that the Champions of any league should be anything other than straight into at least the last qualifying round of the “Champions League” – but that’s another argument for another time perhaps (I am all for going back to straight knockouts, preferably without any seeding whatsoever).
Big picture again – say the gates are shared. I don’t think 50:50 is reasonable, but lets say 80:20. Your Kilmarnock team will be able to secure a slightly better class of player, or more likely develop a stronger squad to see them through a season. Either way the quality improves.
Games improve, crowds improve, competition improves – importantly not just for Kilmarnock. Even Celtic would see higher crowds when the fans can expect to see a proper competitive match (lets face it the loss of Rangers has had by far its biggest effect on Celtic out of all the SPL teams). Then with proper management and tending the circle of improvements can be kept going. The burst of youth we are seeing in the Scottish game can only be a good thing. That in itself should kick start a big improvement in the game….
…only problem is, it requires some trust and belief in those put in charge of running the game
Edit
Oh and the 20k extra fans turn up cos for once they actually have something to play for, not just to show up as as also-rans. It’s very easy for fans of the bigger clubs to deride the attendance at other stadiums. Look around – how many glory hunters are present in your support? That’s not an attack on Celtic fans or any other fans of successful clubs – it is a sad fact, and pulls football fans away from supporting their local “diddy” team. Just think of the crowds the Old Firm (I believe Rangers especially) were attracting in the early-mid 80’s..
i dont disagree with Tcup’s comments. i dont believe clubs who have a higher attendance should have to share the gate either.
by the same token i would also say that i hope the days of turning thousands of seats over to clubs like Celtic and The Rangers are over. i understand the need for the money. Economically it makes sense.
However, turning your home ground into an away ground, moving season ticket holders and general fans around to benefit the addition of more away fans is unpalatable to me.
Thats why i couldnt understand the fuss over the Championship play offs. Your support and your ground should remain just that. Not a home from home for away fans.
Just my opinion ☺
Further to and in support of Tayred’s point of 1.45pm I would simply ask the following:
How easy is it for the fathers in the support to ‘sell’ the local club to their offspring in terms of future support.
Success breeds support. Witness the children flocking back to Pittodrie as evidence. I personally hope ICT milk their cup win for all its worth in the same way.
But it only goes so far. Clubs naturally have a glass ceiling in their supports. Moving that ceiling is a much more long term affair – the odd cup win won’t shift it. Success sells, for sure, but only so far. As Celtic are now finding out it can only be sold so far and so often (that’s not to deflate my earlier point btw – 1st, even a distant 1st, is still a helluva easier sell than 9th and going nowhere). No, shifting that ceiling is a much longer term affair and requires the input, as well as the on the park stuff, of owners and game administrators.
I have some confidence in the former. I have zero confidence in the latter.
And yes, its also a valid point that increased revenues need to be retained for the good of the game. There are plenty genuine leeches out there without us creating more.
tcup 2012 says:
Member: (280 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 2:07 pm
Thirdly who is to say any money Generated from gate sharing would be ploughed back into the teams?
Besides if there was an influx of money no matter how little
I’m sure the agents/players would make sure they got their cut first and foremost
——————————————————————–
Yeah, thats possible. In which case the experiment dies.
I would just like for something to come out of all this, for Scottish football to be the first to realise this single-minded, look after number 1, money game that football has become simply cannot survive. If Sky or BT decide to pull out of the EPL it is going to be in an almighty mess (surely to god now the BBC have to slash their expenditure on it what with Gideon and his mates turning the screw on them). I rarely watch the EPL, not even highlights, and I certainly wouldn’t pay a subscription to watch it. Same goes for the European football. Once Aberdeen are out of it I’ll not be interested. It’s boring – same teams, same players, same passionless game over and over – sound familiar?
We have a chance to do something, we have most clubs in the best financial health they have been in for years.
We have to forget about Europe, it’s gone for us, we are never going to get into that club again. Lets put some effort into working out how we can make our league the best we can, that needs us to somehow make it competitive once again. If we do that, then the development will come, we might even get back to the days when Scottish clubs can survive more than 2 rounds of Euro competition.
Or we can just bury our heads in the sand and carry on as before – which I’m sure we will, sigh…
blu says:
Member: (199 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 11:05 am
“…the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee had no locus in determining the legal status of RFC (IL)”
——————————-
I’d agree but I’d cut the BBC and the Rangers fans a bit of slack personally.
I’ve not perused your fresh link because the arguments were gone over at the time and I prefer to rely on my particular segment of the collective consciousness; purely to assist in accessibility.
Basically, the BBC ruling asserted that when they were talking about sport they would make no distinction between the current and any previous undertaking of Rangers. When considering any business angle, it may indeed be necessary to make such a distinction. That’s a summary that I may be corrected upon but which is easy to digest and recall.
I can understand that many contributors would wish certain aspects of Rangers travails to be consistently highlighted since there is a very strong feeling that some of the characteristics encountered did not appear to represent fair play. However some contributors, having a similar attitude, have indicated that they would not necessarily wish to prolong a discrimination against Rangers because they are confident in their own mind concerning this unfairness and would likely draw attention to it on a circumstance by circumstance basis.
For the BBC not to draw attention to Rangers discontinuity when discussing sport makes things simpler. It may indeed serve an agenda that wishes to gloss over any unfairness but there have been many football clubs that have suffered discontinuity and I would not expect this to be routinely highlighted when their matches were being reported upon.
However there are numerous incidents of media reports carrying the line ‘When Rangers emerged from administration’ and the suchlike. This is obviously skewed reporting and is deliberately glossing over circumstances not for simplicity and clarity but to forward a political agenda.
It is not unusual to read a report about a club that has suffered a business discontinuity concerning their sporting exploits and see within that report a reference to past difficulties. If the discontinuity of such a club has been a liquidation then I personally would expect this to be explicitly stated. Alas we know this is not always the case.
Your point perhaps highlights this contrast and stands in opposition to burghGer’s contribution that could be read as implying that the BBC decision had some wider implication. I agree with you that it could not for the reason you have stated.
Accepting basic facts, even within a sports report should not be controversial. If they are then this speaks volumes about those facts. Attempts to gloss over such facts as the nature of the business discontinuity of a sporting undertaking will undoubtedly cause ire. Contributors will draw attention to them. The schism will threaten to become a chasm. Surely this must be the role of the mainstream media, to pitch one section of the populace against the other. failure to reflect simple realities certainly has that effect.
Exactly the same process on Chrome for Android.
tayred says:
Member: (144 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 1:45 pm
“Games improve, crowds improve, competition improves – importantly not just for Kilmarnock.”
——————————-
Your logic is very sound for me but to unwind the current set up it might be necessary to look ‘through the round window’.
I shudder to drag up the ancient history but its what I feel is necessary.
At the zenith of Rangers success in the 1990’s, there was a distinct chance that they might emulate Celtic’s success in 1967 in winning the European cup. To do this they needed to attract as much finance as possible since they needed to fund the best squad possible to attain such an achievement. I think it was at this stage that all manner of decision making was drawn toward the clubs with the biggest financial clout. Celtic went along with this since they were in this select group of two.
Rangers were not fundamentally megalomaniacs. The predominant business environment was calling on all businesses to maximise their revenue streams and to be selfish in their business outlook. It was a zeitgeist that David Murray, seeing himself as the epitome of successful capitalism, bought into and drove forward. This is when the teams outwith the big two became marginalised.
In hindsight this was a mistake. Having a league peppered with potential is obviously better for everyone concerned. We are probably in a better position now to correct this imbalance since the temptation of drawing all funds to a central source in an attempt to tout at ‘Big ears’ is currently out of reach.
Some redress in the balance of power within the top league is probably necessary. The voting structure is an obvious target for consideration as is potential gate sharing mechanisms. An ideal topic for the blog I’d have thought.
The 1thing even I forgot about when it comes to Gate sharing
Is would it be financial viable for most clubs?
Yes they would get a big payday when they went to play teams with big home support
Like Aberdeen Celtic TRFC for example
But the gain of (for talking sake) 20-50% from gates at theses grounds would it offset the loss of the same gate 20-50% at there home ground?
It may look good on paper taking 20-50% from parkhead ibrox pittodrie
But what about how much would be taken out of your purse for all the home games in the league?
You may find you would loss money from gate sharing
Not gain money
tcup 2012 says:
Member: (281 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 3:41 pm
But the gain of (for talking sake) 20-50% from gates at theses grounds would it offset the loss of the same gate 20-50% at there home ground?
———————————————————————
I definitely wouldn’t be one to advocate 50% ground share. That’s never going to happen. I would have thought 10-20% would be about all you could convince the bigger clubs to swallow.
But yes, it works in both directions, the diddies get a boost to help reduce their diddiness, while the so-called biggies get taken down a wee bit. Bingo-bango-bongo!! Competition!
Sorry its been a long day….
But ultimately you would hope that the increase in competition and interest would start to offset those losses such that the final figures wouldn’t be anything like as bad as you might think
Tayred
I don’t think you read my post correctly
Or I wasn’t clear
It’s the so called wee Diddy teams who could be the losers
Even at 10-20%
The gains from 2 games at pittodrie and 2 at parkhead would never offset the loss of 10-20% of their home gate
Of which there biggest home paydays would be down by 10-20%
The same with every home game
As I said looks good on paper when looking at taking money off Celtic TRFC Aberdeen etc
But reality is you would be losing 10-20% off your home gate for the season
So even in the best case scenario the so called Diddy teams would struggle to walk away with what they are getting for 100% of their gate
Interesting conversation on splitting gate receipts for league games. Might be some other viable alternatives such as further levelling of prize money across the league placings, more even distribution of sfa and spfl pots to all teams from cup revenues and if league games takings must be split it could be on a basis of a percentage cut of away fan gate receipts as opposed to hitting the home fan takings. All of the above could help achieve a higher baseline for all clubs without penalising home fans for turning out to support their team. Oh, and tin hat on, maybe a fairer distribution of the currently meagre TV money might also help
Aye, guilty as charged I misunderstood. I must admit I hadn’t thought of it that way.
We would need someone good at number crunching to come up with a proper answer to that. Instinctively, I’d say they would still come out on top, but you are right it might not be much of a gain.
No problem Tayred ?
I’m sure the number crunchers are crunching as we speak
But even so attendances change not just from season to season but week to week
And not always for the better ?
I always open links that way, Woodstein. I was just trying to give Trisidium a way to retain readers
Assuming we can write more than blockquote
this should open in a new tab
Visit SFM
and this should open in this window
Visit SFM
Well I have previously run the numbers and depending on the percentage split Only one or two other than Celtic would be worse off. Take the dons, if they took 20% of two 40000 crowds away to Celtic then their home crowds would have to be less than 80000 better in total than their away crowds. Close some times but not usually. For most of the rest, except Hearts, it would be better off. That’s why afc of Anderson era pushed for keeping the home gates and that was in league with two megateams. As an afc fan I think they (the”big” teams) are wrong. Improve the income for a wider group, lift the standard, get bigger crowds: that’s worth a bash. Or keep doing the same stuff for the same outcome.
Ernie
I take your point
As you say you have run the numbers
May I ask when (what year) you ran the numbers
And could I also ask
If Aberdeen crowds grow and teams like St Johnstone Kilmarnock Partick Thistle
Crowds stay sagnent How can this benefit Scottish football?
The way I have to take your numbers At the moment is that it is every team taking 20% of Celtics gate
What happens when you take every team taking 20% of Hamiltons gate?
Taking your fiugers 20% of 40,000 (celtics gate) over 2 games =16,000
Most teams in Scotland struggle to get more than 5,000
20% =1,000
Over 19 games that’s 19,000
The problem with gate sharing is that it involves vested interest, and in that case, people will argue that black is white because they are intransigently wedded to their own view.
On the one hand people will tell you that they only pay to see their own team. Sporting integrity (which necessitates having another team) aside, I wonder how many of those people would turn up to see their first team against the reserves? And why do they go to away matches?
On the other hand, 50-50 sharing of gates hardly takes into account the capex involved in putting better and better stadia together. Why should an away team benefit from the fact that a Rangers or Celtic for example have gone to the trouble of building, at greater cost, bigger, better and more comfortable arenas?
I get both sides of the argument, but whatever side you take, it seems to me that in the post-Rangers era, we should be looking at making the total take a bit more equitable, or that doing so would improve competition.
There are logistical difficulties involved of course. For example, the previous gate sharing regime ended before the current culture of season book ownership became widespread. Quantifying shares, in whatever proportions would not be straightforward. However my guess is that any organisation that came up with the Premier League split or the 5WA could get their heads around that.
The obvious difficulty with gate sharing is, I’m afraid, trusting the clubs’ declarations. The game is incapable of policing itself.
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Member: (74 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 7:09 pm
The obvious difficulty with gate sharing is, I’m afraid, trusting the clubs’ declarations. The game is incapable of policing itself.
////////////////////////////////////
Well now there’s a thing
What happens especially to the number cruncher estimates
If teams like Celtic start declaring only the Only people who come through the gates (which is their right)
Rather than declaring pay ins and none attending Season ticket holders (whom have already paid) which they do at the moment (Which is also their right)
What 10-20% would the visiting team receive?
The 40k + pay ins
Or
10-20% of those who turned up on the day
If it is the latter they are not cheating or lieing to anyone (dependent on the wording of any gate sharing agreement)
Or the full amount
All season ticket holders + pay ins
( to me that would mean if you knew you couldn’t attend a certain amount of games in a season You would be better Not purchasing a season ticket so as less money would be paid out by your club)
The Champions of Scotland playing a CL qualifying tie in the middle of July – and before most folks have taken their summer holidays !
It just doesn’t seem right… 😕
I’m all for gate sharing but I think the ‘shared’ portion should be pooled, rather than just split. The total pool could then be split between the teams in each league.
Just had a quick look at the Rangers Retail Ltd. AR01 lodged with Companies House.
I see Mr King thinks the stadium is located somewhere called “Edminston Drive”.
That’s the problem if you complete official documentation glibly.
All this talk of sharing got me thinking, especially after reading Phil’s blog tonight.
Could SFM perhaps economise on planned office rental costs by sharing, say perhaps at 26 Blythswood Square, where maybe some (or even any) income would be greatly appreciated?
Just a thought to try and level up donations against costs.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
I may have missed the publication of figures, but…
While enjoying the Clumpany’s regular demolition of the worst of the SMSM bigging up of all things Ibrox related and the part played by the stout gentlemen(man) of Level5, I feel I have to take him to task over the way he has (deliberately, I’m sure) ignored the fact that both entities, the lambs :slamb: and their shepherds :evil:5, have, in no way, been guilty of ‘bigging up’ the progress of season ticket sales.
Level5, in particular, must be doing sterling work in the way they are preventing King and his merry men from ‘leaking’ the latest figures as they pass each significant mark – last season’s total, then 25,000, then 30,000 and so on – and also discouraging the wee lambs from dot counting on etickets (or TRFC’s equivalent) and releasing the news in their daily Ibrox bulletins.
This, I think, is a master stroke and all part of their strategy. From the genius of holding back the start of the sales push in an already shrunken window, to the photo of the queue anxiously waiting for the portacabin doors to open to start the general sale; just a pity the cameraman didn’t have a lens capable of capturing the full length of that monstrous gathering of bears, but we know there was at least forty, maybe even fifty people there.
I’m sure Dave King, or maybe Paul Murray, would have wanted to copy the way other clubs, like my own, kept releasing figures as they passed their, admittedly lower, significant figures, creating a feel-good factor amongst the club’s target audience. Clearly a bad strategy, for what supporters ever react positively to ‘feel-good’.
But Jim Traynor is made of sterner stuff, he knows the value of secrecy and leaving supporters in the dark. Why create a feel-good factor when fear and doubt is one of the great sales techniques! Just you watch, Mr Clumpany, when Dave King, once again, stands on those marble stairs and announces that his club have surpassed their target figure. ‘Forty five thousand, three hundred and fifty one people have bought season tickets! And, true to my word, I’m going to match that figure. Here, in my hand, is my cheque, drawn on a bank you’ve never heard of, for forty five thousand…’
So, Clumps, it’s time to eat humble pie, get those fingers rattling your keyboard, and apologise to those men of ovine nature, and their handlers, for not pointing out that they have it in them not to write utter sheepish when it comes to season ticket sales at Ibrox. After all, it can’t be that there’s no good news to massage about season ticket sales, now could it?
redlichtie says:
Member: (260 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 8:08 pm
All this talk of sharing got me thinking, especially after reading Phil’s blog tonight…
========================
Phil implying that Warburton was unaware of a lack of signing-on fee or holiday pay for new TRFC players.
For a guy like Warburton with a finance background, he should have had a clear idea of the financial shambles he was walking into at Ibrox…but this snippet of info does seem rather curious.
If Warburton’s efforts of bringing in ‘Bosmans’ are scuppered by TRFC’s parsimony, then he ain’t going to be a happy chappy !
An unhappy manager trying, allegedly, to introduce ‘total football’ 😆 with unwanted, but transfers-free, players would really have his work cut out for him at Ibrox.
To state the bleedin’ obvious.
1 more thing about Gate Sharing
But mostly directed towards the number crunchers
So far we have all based our asuptions on playing at parkhead pittodrie or even Ibrox (if in the league)
Twice a season
What happens if your team doesn’t make the split and have only been to the big payday once?
Or
Your team does make the split but are drawn at home against Celtic,Aberdeen or TRFC ( if on the league)?
And thus only getting the big payday once
When are the BBC going to learn,half time and the pundits ,P.Bonner,Mark Wilson discussing the difficulty of breaking down a team that spread themselves along their 18yard line and guess who is asked his thoughts ,yep Chick Young,and what does he open with,this team is rotten,then Wilson & Bonner have a go at his choice of words and for the next 5 min he tries to dig himself out of another poor comment,someone at the Beeb should be held to account for this type of reporting,oh dear.l
redlichtie says:
Member: (260 comments)
I did wonder if the boys were engaging in a bit of unintentional comedy gold when they named their new venture Level 5. If there were to be a Level 5 issue with Level 5, the Only an Excuse mob will think its their birthdays and Christmas all come at once
Scottish Football fans are going to need reinforced rib cages at this rate 😉
blu says:
Member: (199 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 11:05 am
burghGer, they may have been a worthy group of the highest integrity but the BBC’s Editorial Standards Committee had no locus in determining the legal status of RFC (IL).
___________
I don’t think they disputed any of the facts you refer to in your link. A good resource by the way.
picture the scene….
a glasgow courtroom Lord Nimmo Smith presiding….
a chirpy govan face painter has become fed up waiting for bdo’s ‘ divi’ and fuelled by burghgers bbc esc ‘ ruling ‘of same club is going to give it a go that on that fateful day in 2012 she was painting faces for the ‘ club’ not the company….
call your first witness bellows LNS… well your honour my star witness is tsfm poster burghger and the bbc esc , trfc and rfc are one and the same club however since arriving in court today I now have a ‘ stellar’ witness…. I call youself your honour ….. chirps the GFP……
Flocculent Apoidea says:
Member: (74 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 7:09 pm
‘.. The game is incapable of policing itself.’
_______
And in respect of much more fundamental aspects than gate-sharing agreements, those in Football authority charged with ‘policing’ the administration of the sport have all but killed any belief that they are men of any kind of integrity.
They stand condemned by the 5-way Agreement as the equivalent of the bent cops, judges, politicians of many a good movie:
and their hypocritical cant about FFP is on a par with the utterances of, say,a convicted South Africa-based criminal.
They simply must not be allowed to get away with that dreadful betrayal of Sporting Integrity, however long it takes to nail them.
Very heartening it was to see the ‘book-keeper of Auschwitz’ , even though 94 years old, getting something of his just deserts.
The guilty men in our Football Authorities will not, sadly, go to gaol.
But until they are 94 years old or older, they will know in their own hearts that they sold their souls, no matter how they try to justify their actions to themselves.
Even the feckin ‘book-keeper’ recognised his ‘moral guilt’.
yourhavingalaugh says:
Member: (319 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 9:02 pm
=============================
I’m just back in from Celtic Park. I don’t think the Icelanders were ‘rotten’ as you say Chick Young put it, but Celtic did make heavy weather of winning the game. Several excellent chances missed, and not for the first time a penalty missed after a petty squabble over who was taking it. The ‘rotten’ team actually had a couple of decent chances themselves, and their keeper had a fine game.
Overall though what would Chick Young have given for his team to have beaten a bunch of ‘rotten’ Icelanders in a CL qualifier tonight, and I don’t mean St Mirren!!!!!!!!!!!
upthehoops says:
Member: (782 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 11:21 pm
yourhavingalaugh says:
Member: (319 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 9:02 pm
=============================
I’m just back in from Celtic Park. I don’t think the Icelanders were ‘rotten’ as you say Chick Young put it, but Celtic did make heavy weather of winning the game. Several excellent chances missed, and not for the first time a penalty missed after a petty squabble over who was taking it. The ‘rotten’ team actually had a couple of decent chances themselves, and their keeper had a fine game.
Overall though what would Chick Young have given for his team to have beaten a bunch of ‘rotten’ Icelanders in a CL qualifier tonight, and I don’t mean St Mirren!!!!!!!!!!!
========================================================
Gunnar at the ‘well was what you’d call and eccentric stopper kind of goalie. Not surprised.
No Brazilians in the side tonight? Must be losing their pulling power.
Anyhow watch them they wont be done over by an away loss.
fishnish says:
Member: (40 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Not quite.
On an Ipad if you touch and HOLD the link, in due course the same/similar menu pops up.
I’d have thought Nexus could do that, too.
scottc says:
Member: (196 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 5:30 pm
I always open links that way, Woodstein. I was just trying to give Trisidium a way to retain readers
—————————————————–
fishnish you are right, it does (I’m a tap it and see type 🙄 ) Not allowed to get my fingerprints on significant other’s Ipad ❗ 🙄
scottc
Sometimes I end up with dozens of pages open, and get lost. 😳
scapaflow says:
Member: (1282 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 12:36 pm
‘..Journalism does not exist to protect the fecking establishment, its a vital part of the checks and balances that protect the rest of us.’
______
True, indeed.
But if our journalists were all to be like the SMSM sports journalists who DO protect the ‘establishment’ club as was and its ersatz substitute at the price of their journalistic integrity, what then?
They have made whores of themselves, unfit to make any claim on the ‘freedom of the press’ defense.
We can all speir away on the drive up to Keith, and try to trayn or educate our young minds and tell Dick’s son that, ‘with the best wil,son, I simply cannae eat gray ham’….
But how do we seriously get at these impostors, these ‘pretendy journalists’?
Quite simply: by challenging them by email or twitter protest.
No one claiming to be a ‘journalist’ is entitled to lie.
ianagain says:
Member: (611 comments)
July 15, 2015 at 11:42 pm
Gunnar at the ‘well was what you’d call and eccentric stopper kind of goalie. Not surprised.
No Brazilians in the side tonight? Must be losing their pulling power.
Anyhow watch them they wont be done over by an away loss.
==========================
I am seasoned enough not to take anything for granted, especially in Europe. I’d have been far more comfortable had the penalty been converted and it was a three goal lead going into the 2nd leg. A healthy unease is the best way to approach these situations.
Let’s hope ICT and Aberdeen get enough tonight to give them a sporting chance in the 2nd leg.
SoS founder reprimands those of little faith with the truth about DK investment. This will shut the cynics up…uh…or not.
https://m.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth/posts/1663388547225600
Wrt to the Facebook article, isn’t option 3 of giving the money to the club which the writer says no one in their right mind would do, the same as buying a season ticket.
I had a look at the teams participating in the Champions League – Qualifying Second Round last night. It gives an interesting perspective on the status of the Scottish game.
Lincoln Red Imps from Gibraltar are in the same round. At least they are champions of Gibraltar.
Interestingly (according to Wikipedia) it seems like all 8 clubs in the Premier League in Gibraltar share the same stadium and games are played from Friday to Monday/Tuesday across each weekend.
It must be quite funny for every game of the season to be a home game for every team.
And to think we can’t even get two teams on the same street in Dundee to share a stadium.
Re the discussion on Jim Spence and his motives for leaving the BBC, this twitter exchange this morning seems to contain a clue-
On PMGB’s latest blog:
Wouldn’t it just be the Karma of all Karmas for Level5 to go bust because TRFC were unable to pay their bills. How’d you spin that, Jim?
Level5…spinning in it’s grave! I know, a bit early yet, but they are a company as obnoxious as their trade, and their demise would very welcome indeed. And how great would it be, if Jim Spence was the man to break the news?
On the Champions / Europa League matches my live Sportsound cut out at KO and the posh shouty voice started with the rights issue stuff. Now I had my VPN set to Glasgow bit still no live commentary, I assume problem at my end, but there was live radio commentary on MW?
They sent Jim Spence off with either Saints or Dons recently but he was just posting match updates. A live commentary, even via mobile phone link, would not have broken the BBC budget 😯
Btw, there was a match stream on Kodi last night. Icelanders looked not too bad. Goalie excellent. Saw Celtic thus time last year in Hamburg, what a difference then and now. Fast flowing organised stuff. So, mon ICT & Dons!
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1304 comments)
July 16, 2015 at 7:19 am
SoS founder reprimands those of little faith with the truth about DK investment. This will shut the cynics up…uh…or not.
https://m.facebook.com/SonsOfStruth/posts/1663388547225600
__________________________________________________________________
The Bears demonstrating they are still the unrivalled champions of doublethink.
The article tells us there are only three possible ways in the world for an individual to provide funding to the club/holding company.
Of the the three we are told only one is a viable option, namely:
“2) Loan the money with no security or interest until such time the club organise a share issue and receive shares to the value of the loan. This has already happened with loans from the new board.”
And then explains that this has not happened to the levels previously promised yet because:
“Now for anyone to take the sensible option (lend money until share option) there has to be a few things ironed out first. The club have to appoint a nomad/advisor, get listed on a stock market and then have a share issue. Is this really that hard to understand?”
OK makes sense…. but, wait a minute, you said the only viable option was to “Loan the money with no security or interest UNTIL SUCH TIME THE CLUB ORGANISE A SHARE ISSUE and receive shares to the value of the loan”
Not – Loan the money AFTER the club organise a share issue
Option 2 infers a benevolent benefactor willing to provide a soft loan indefinitely till the club/holding company gets on it’s feet via a share issue, however long that may be. This doesn’t tie in with the excuse offered as to why this hasn’t been forthcoming so far.
“Did this board lose a nomad and cause a delisting? No they never regardless of how some wish to spin this. Therefore it will take as long as it will take and I trust they will explain this in good time.”
Well yes they kind of did actually – from the Daily Record 04/03/2015: “Last month, WH Ireland informed Rangers they would quit if King took power at Ibrox, noting the businessman’s convictions for 41 charges relating to South African income tax laws.”
not to mention DK’s disparaging remarks about WH Ireland prior to his appointment.
But none of this was to be a problem anyway, because DK said he would have a new NOMAD in place in a matter of 2 or 3 days. What happened to that…
There are none as blind etc etc
Allyjambo says:
Member: (1078 comments)
July 16, 2015 at 9:49 am
On PMGB’s latest blog:
Wouldn’t it just be the Karma of all Karmas for Level5 to go bust because TRFC were unable to pay their bills. How’d you spin that, Jim?
Level5…spinning in it’s grave! I know, a bit early yet, but they are a company as obnoxious as their trade, and their demise would very welcome indeed. And how great would it be, if Jim Spence was the man to break the news?
______________________________________________________________
I had a look at the Level 5 website.
There are a number of cringingly grovelling comments among the testimonials from the ranks of the Scottish football old boys network. One in particular from Walter Smith was one that would have the tea splattered all over the keyboard:
“The one thing you will always get from James Traynor is honesty. I didn’t always like what he had to say but you always knew where you stood. He is a listener and I also found through the years that he has a way of solving all kinds of problems through logic and reason” (and bullying and shouting down people on the phone he didn’t say)
Problems like…maybe..I don’t know… if you wanted to get the season extended?
Anyway, I would have thought that in the PR business, honesty would actually be a handicap more than anything. :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
MoreCelticParanoia says:
Member: (88 comments)
July 16, 2015 at 10:22 am
At least they are not all lining up to drool over the words of their prophet. The following, who responds to the SoS criticism of anonymous bloggers by pointing out he’s using his real name, displays a different point of view, which appears to be ignored by all the other posters (which kind of makes my first sentence redundant 😕 ), including their opinion former, with no one agreeing with him (IF), and, more interestingly, no one challenging what he says. I’m not too certain that what he says is completely feasible, but I’m sure there’s a workable way to apply his thinking if there is a definite will by King and the 3bears. Regardless, the easy acceptance, after more than 4 years of wool over the eyes, is still mind-numbingly sad in a funny sort of way – or is that funny in a sad sort of way?
The referred to post:
“Ian Fraser
My name is Ian Fraser and also wish everyone a great season.
However Craig, im afraid you have missed out, by far, the easiest option, which could be done within 3 weeks. Dave King and the 3 Bears could underwrite a share issue without a NOMAD, due the fact we are delisted, today and he could issue 45 million shares at 50p puting £22.5m into the club by the start of the season.
Every shareholder would have the opportunity to buy up their allocation but at 50p, most wont (supporters aside.) This would also strengthen their positions over Ashley and the Easdale Block as each of them would hold just below the 30% compulsory buy out threshold as long as they are able to show they are not in concert with each other.
For me, this is what they should have done back in March as its the sums of money they told us all they were going to commit to the club and its the main reason i personally backed them.
Their lack of action is frightening. Their bumbling performances on television are even more frightening. For me, manager apart, its just more of the same garbage sitting in the BR as things stand.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
So i hope i have passed the online persona thing and would ask you in return, why didnt they choose the extremely simple and low cost method of puting in their £20m. And why dont they do it TODAY ?”
MoreCelticParanoia says:
July 16, 2015 at 10:22 am
Danish Pastry says:
July 16, 2015 at 7:19 am
Have to say Craig Houston talks at lot of sense at times but then his brain seems to stop working when the loyal real rangers man gene kicks in as he appears unwilling to ask questions about why it appears to be taking so long when there has been talk from the new board of ‘hitting the ground running’.
The comments from King appear to be at odds with those of Douglas Park who seems to imply the whole project of rebuilding will take a long time.
Despite all the talk of Ashley mounting a three pronged attack and King over-investing IMHO the business will fail or survive, once again, by how they manage their cash flow.
As with most businesses they will not be screaming to the rafters if things are heading for the buffers. It will be business as usual until they run out of cash or secure further investment to keep the ship afloat.
As we all know from recent history with season ticket money coming in and all going well the business, without any new investment, has a good chance of getting towards Christmas.
There is still plenty of time to sort out Nomads, auditors, listings, a new share issue etc.
On the playing front we still have to the end of August for this transfer window for Warburton to add to the squad and a few competitive games before then to assess what he has and what direction the season may go in.
Therefore nothing to panic about.
That is depending on what your aims are for the football club.
The current financial position of living hand to mouth and the Ashley ‘stranglehold’ allows for nothing more than keeping things ticking over with a smallish squad of varying quality. Or as everybody else calls it, living within one’s means.
There is nothing wrong with that, it is honest and dignified.
The problem is people have been strung along by King with talk of building a squad this season that is capable of challenging Celtic, Euro glory and all that goes with the ‘Back to Where We Belong’ BS.
As it stands there is no sign of anything going on to make that happen.
But as I say still plenty of time…………….
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1305 comments)
July 16, 2015 at 7:19 am
———————————————————–
This (below) missing from SOS (Craig Houston) article:-
1) Buy new issued shares
Shareholders’ Special Resolution – Disapplication of Section 561 Pre-emption On Share Issue
Shareholders’ Special Resolutions require the votes of 75% of members present in person or by proxy, who are entitled to vote and do vote at the meeting. The meeting at which the resolution is proposed must have had at least 14 days notice, unless a shorter period was agreed by a majority in number of members holding at least 90% of the shares (95% in the case of public companies).
Alternatively, the written resolution procedure can be used, and the resolution will be passed if approved by shareholders representing 75% of the total voting rights of the shareholders entitled to vote on the written resolution on the day it is circulated.
—————————–
Can 75% be achieved ?
woodstein says:
Member: (124 comments)
July 16, 2015 at 11:23 am
Can 75% be achieved ?
===========================
I think it is highly doubtful. The turkeys have already voted for Christmas once, by allowing King to take control of the boardroom. There is a substantial block of shareholders who are neither fans, nor terminally stupid. They can see that King plans an effective takeover at a bargain price, without having to buy them out at over 20p a share. Why would they vote to assist King in that? The sensible shareholders don’t want their shareholding diluted to nothing, but they also don’t want to throw in more money just to maintain their percentage holding.
I agree with the poster on RSL, quoted above, Ian Fraser. There are a lot of unissued shares which King could offer to all existing shareholders tomorrow, without any inconvenient meetings or votes required. So why doesn’t he? I’m starting to think that King doesn’t in fact have any real cash available.
What amazes me is the gullibility of the SoS brigade. You would imagine that the events of the last 5 years might have taught them to be more cautious in assessing self-proclaimed saviours, but not a bit of it. Houston’s comments about the Nomad are simply laughable. Can he really believe his own words? Astonishing. But then blind faith has always puzzled me, and blind faith is exactly what we are seeing here.
Excellent piece.
I have not bought a mainstream newspaper for aound 4 months and don’t intend to ever again.
The straw that broke the camels back for me was the reporting (please don’t laugh) of Dave Kings hostile takeover of Second Rangers and the subsequent succulent lamb journalism!!
I do have a peek,from time to time – on line that is, and the crap that’s being spouted to the gullibies, since their 52 year old inexperienced tactical genies took over, is simply astonishing.
Keep up the good work!
Cygnus X2 on July 16, 2015 at 8:43 am
And to think we can’t even get two teams on the same street in Dundee to share a stadium
========
Hey…it’s bad enough having to share a street with them 😈
** asking the key questions **
Does the BBC pay its “match of the day” presenters more than to cover Scottish Football ? That would be a real scandal… time to dig?
dj7 says:
Member: (6 comments)
July 16, 2015 at 1:39 pm
** asking the key questions **
Does the BBC pay its “match of the day” presenters more than to cover Scottish Football ? That would be a real scandal… time to dig?
——————————————————————
I could be wrong but Im sure I read somewhere that Lineker alone was earning more than was paid to Scottish football. Anyone?
Have they even released the figures, in this time of transparency surely they must have??
edit – a quick tour of the mighty Google brought up a figure of 3million a year for TV & radio coverage for the previous deal with the belief that the current deal is pretty much the same.
Lineker and sidekicks were reputed to be earning 3.5 million a year…
From Today’s Record- “Michael Gannon: It’s time Rangers had a place back at the SPFL top table”
I won’t post a link, but the headline says it all. Whatever Level 5 are getting paid (or not paid) by Kingco, they are certainly producing results.
Anyone with a strong enough stomach to read the full article will learn that the “Diddy Clubs” (i.e not full time pros like the mighty Gers) should have been corralled into regional leagues when the SPFL was formed. A big chance missed, according to Gannon. Just to give you a taste of Gannon’s philosophy- this comes with a severe health warning for “diddy club” supporters, so look away now-