Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Rangers in Administration


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
96 replies to this topic

#1 SoxFanInCali


  • has the rich, deep voice of a god and the penis of a scouse


  • 6327 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 03:49 PM

Looks like Rangers have filed papers to appoint administrators as they await the result of a tax tribunal hearing. They now have 10 days to decide whether they will take that step.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-17015966

If they do go into administration, they would immediately get a 10 point deduction, which would clinch the title for Celtic (currently 4 points ahead), but wouldn't even knock them out of second place (they currently lead Motherwell by 19). I don't think UEFA would grant them a license to participate in the Champions League should this happen, though.

Edited by SoxFanInCali, 14 February 2012 - 07:16 PM.


#2 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12078 posts

Posted 13 February 2012 - 05:02 PM

Cue drunken cackling by Sydney and Rip!

#3 CodPiece XL

  • 847 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 10:17 AM

"For every five pounds Celtic spend, we will spend ten,"

There you go David Murray, see what that gets you.

Tore Andre Flo says "hello".

#4 LondonSox


  • Robert the Deuce


  • 4768 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:48 AM

I find this pretty shocking.
Firstly, where does Scottish football go from here, it's always been essentially a two horse race with an occassional extra team getting involved.
If Rangers is done or anything like it then Celtic will suffer too, it's not interesting to have one team win the whole time, and to lose the defining rivalry of a country, city and sport. The Old firm games were the most watched and televised games outside of scotland by a wide margin.
Secondly, Rangers are not without success, what does this mean for the rest of Scottish teams, can ou seriously expect massive investment into a team when one of the top teams, one you would want to emulate, is bankrupt?
Finally, this speaks to my view of football as a whole, there is a serious disaster for football looming, most clubs do not make money and are not run to really even try. The only way to make money is to win things and to get into Europe. When I say Europe I mean the Champions league, this is increasingly hard to do, with people spending far more than they can earn to either have a fun hobby for the ultra ritch or divert attention from how they got that rich. Realistically, without vast sums of money invested like Man City, who can go from mid teir to top teir at this point. Now this is not to say it cannot be done, Newcastle this year is a prime example of how things can work. Develop talent sell it at a vast premium, invest wisely and keep the house in order. But don't forget that the owner was nearly pushed out because he put the finances first, and tried to solve the horrible debt hanging over the club. Arsenal is another club that has constnatly developed and sold, but as a result hasn't won anything for years. So is the competitive but unsuccessful club the best you can look for if your team is not owner by some super power of money?
I think sadly yes, and people will push to compete, over extend and risk their entire club and history on the gamble. (See Leeds UTD for details)
Without Rangers I don't see how Scottish football keeps generating interest outside scotland, which means a drop in TV money etc.

Sad times. Ironically Celtic fans who are cheering today may end up distressed in the end.
Of course if some super rich buyer emerges then no problem it'll all return to the status quo just with money being burnt by someone new.

#5 Apisith

  • 1215 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:53 AM

The majority shareholder has done this on purpose because his debt is the only secured debt. It's been coming for a while according to people who know and the owner's come out today saying that they expect to come out of this in a month or two, and that they'll be able to play in Europe this season.

They've done this because the verdict on their tax trial is coming in and they couldn't afford to lose that. This gives them and him protection in case it goes against them.

#6 ethangl

  • 2179 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 11:58 AM

Without Rangers


They aren't going anywhere.

Frankly defaulting on debt should carry a significantly higher penalty than 10 points. It's a joke.

#7 Mr. Wednesday

  • 792 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 12:55 PM

Looks like Rangers have filed papers to appoint administrators as they await the result of a tax tribunal hearing. They now have 10 days to decide whether they will take that step.


They weren't long deciding. The decision to go into administration was made today, reportedly due to HMRC attempting to beat Whyte to the punch and install their own administrators.

Frankly defaulting on debt should carry a significantly higher penalty than 10 points. It's a joke.


Bankruptcy doesn't carry any penalty that I'm aware of in American leagues.

Edited by Mr. Wednesday, 14 February 2012 - 12:56 PM.


#8 ethangl

  • 2179 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:07 PM

Bankruptcy doesn't carry any penalty that I'm aware of in American leagues.


And... ?

#9 Titans Bastard


  • has sunil gulati in his sights


  • 2961 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 01:08 PM

I find this pretty shocking.
Firstly, where does Scottish football go from here, it's always been essentially a two horse race with an occassional extra team getting involved.
If Rangers is done or anything like it then Celtic will suffer too, it's not interesting to have one team win the whole time, and to lose the defining rivalry of a country, city and sport. The Old firm games were the most watched and televised games outside of scotland by a wide margin.
Secondly, Rangers are not without success, what does this mean for the rest of Scottish teams, can ou seriously expect massive investment into a team when one of the top teams, one you would want to emulate, is bankrupt?
Finally, this speaks to my view of football as a whole, there is a serious disaster for football looming, most clubs do not make money and are not run to really even try. The only way to make money is to win things and to get into Europe. When I say Europe I mean the Champions league, this is increasingly hard to do, with people spending far more than they can earn to either have a fun hobby for the ultra ritch or divert attention from how they got that rich. Realistically, without vast sums of money invested like Man City, who can go from mid teir to top teir at this point. Now this is not to say it cannot be done, Newcastle this year is a prime example of how things can work. Develop talent sell it at a vast premium, invest wisely and keep the house in order. But don't forget that the owner was nearly pushed out because he put the finances first, and tried to solve the horrible debt hanging over the club. Arsenal is another club that has constnatly developed and sold, but as a result hasn't won anything for years. So is the competitive but unsuccessful club the best you can look for if your team is not owner by some super power of money?
I think sadly yes, and people will push to compete, over extend and risk their entire club and history on the gamble. (See Leeds UTD for details)
Without Rangers I don't see how Scottish football keeps generating interest outside scotland, which means a drop in TV money etc.

Sad times. Ironically Celtic fans who are cheering today may end up distressed in the end.
Of course if some super rich buyer emerges then no problem it'll all return to the status quo just with money being burnt by someone new.


Good post.

Historically, I think the lack of parity in Europe has always been as much a feature as a bug. It provides for a variety of David vs. Goliath moments. In terms of interest, leagues and competitions benefit from having established/dynastic powers mixed in with well-managed small clubs having a good decade.

But today's big TV money and CL money has thrown the equilibrium out of whack. The "social mobility" of a club hinges more and more on the financial resources of its owner. Even well-managed clubs with sizable fanbases can't compete with the financial big boys. At some point, does the predictability of it all start to make it less fun? I mean, ossie is going to come on here and talk about how football died years ago, but clearly that's not the way most people feel considering the ever-increasing stake of money in the game.

Where are we headed, exactly? What will European football look like in 20 years?

#10 SoxFanInCali


  • has the rich, deep voice of a god and the penis of a scouse


  • 6327 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:05 PM

The majority shareholder has done this on purpose because his debt is the only secured debt. It's been coming for a while according to people who know and the owner's come out today saying that they expect to come out of this in a month or two, and that they'll be able to play in Europe this season.

They've got until March 31st to prove their finances are in shape or they risk expulsion from Europe next season.

#11 CodPiece XL

  • 847 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:40 PM

I think Platini et al are trying to address the European imbalance at least at the CL and Europa League level by starting to implement
Financial Fair Play Rules starting in the 2013-2014 season. This of course does not address issues in domestic leagues.

If a club believes it can qualify for either competition in a season it must apply for a UEFA Club License at which point their financial records will be reviewed.

FFPR is not anti-debt, as long as the debt is being serviced by profits covering the interest rates. If the profit is less than the interest rates etc you will be denied a license to compete. Also, spending on infrastructure and youth development will be exempt from this “break even “ calculation. Ultimately it’s trying to limit scenarios of sudden success brought about by the arrival of a wealthy benefactor which in turn can be followed by an equally stunning collapse and possible dissolution of a club when said benefactor leaves. As London Sox mentioned, Leeds UTD and the Ridsdale era is a great example of spending beyond your means.

I’m trying to think of a recent example where a club would fall foul of the regulations…. perhaps Liverpool prior to the takeover would not have been granted their license. I believe they had profits of 27 M but a debt service of 40 M.. I may be wrong. Chelsea had a loss of 140 M in 2004-2005 and would be have been in breach of FFPR.

The irony here is that such rules would stop the Abramovichs and Mansours of the world building teams over night that challenge the monotony of the same richer teams winning. Perhaps they made the premiership a lot more interesting. This assumes they would have an interest in winning on the European front and not just at the domestic level.

As for Rangers, as a Celtic fan, I may be in the minority but I expect and hope Rangers survive. Not because Celtic need Rangers but I think Scottish football in general needs Rangers. The writing was on the wall in the late 90’s and early 2000’s for Rangers, hence my previous Tore Andre Flo comment, transfer fees and wages were astronomical, they spent a fortune.

As a Celtic fan I saw them almost fold in 1994 but for the intervention of Fergus McCann and an injection of cash. More importantly he brought about a fiscal responsibility and financial prudence. Up to that point Celtic were in the dark ages, family run, it was more ignorance of how to run a business in the modern world than anything else. Murray on the other hand just spent non-existent money…it was unsustainable.

As Peter Ridsdale found out at Leeds, there is price for “Living the dream”, now Rangers fans are paying the same price without having “Lived the dream”.

Edited by CodPiece XL, 14 February 2012 - 02:54 PM.


#12 SoxFanInPdx

  • 1701 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 02:52 PM

I can't stand Rangers, but I'd hate to see them go. I just don't see this happening. The SPL needs them in the league.

#13 Mr. Wednesday

  • 792 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:21 PM

And... ?


It's a counterpoint to the idea that the ten point penalty is insufficient, admittedly nothing more or less than an appeal to authority.

Top-level teams haven't exactly been going into administration left and right. Offhand, there's Rangers, Portsmouth, and Leeds in recent years. Anybody else I'm missing? What's driving your assertion that the ten point penalty should be greater?

I think Platini et al are trying to address the European imbalance at least at the CL and Europa League level by starting to implement


I know in some quarters, they're convinced that the only thing FFP does with imbalances is set them in stone---that the only practical alternative to a very fixed class system is the ability for a wealthy owner to come in and shake things up a la al-Citeh (or Chelski), which FFP would curtail.

Edited by Mr. Wednesday, 14 February 2012 - 03:24 PM.


#14 CodPiece XL

  • 847 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 03:53 PM

There is no doubt there have been fewer casualties because there has always been a company, bank, rich benefactor to bail teams out. This will not correct imbalance. To a certain degree there will be a status quo, I don’t see Osasuna breaking the Real /Barca stranglehold for example.

I think they are looking at the big picture, clubs spending more money than ever, assuming more debt than ever. They are simply telling clubs you can’t spend more than you generate and for the long term health and future of the European game we want you to have a sustainable business model. If this opulent spending continues more clubs will go into receivership….I guess they believe the bubble is about to burst. Does there not come a point where a club is so debt-ridden nobody will see it as being a viable option to bail them out.

Edited by CodPiece XL, 14 February 2012 - 03:58 PM.


#15 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12078 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 05:41 PM

I can't stand Rangers, but I'd hate to see them go. I just don't see this happening. The SPL needs them in the league.


They aren't going anywhere. Even if they can't find a buyer (unlikely) or negotiate a deal with their creditors (unlikely), the SPL would allow a new club called Rangers 2012 right in. There is a 0.0% chance that there isn't a team in blue called Rangers in the SPL next season.

#16 Mr. Wednesday

  • 792 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:06 PM

I think they are looking at the big picture, clubs spending more money than ever, assuming more debt than ever. They are simply telling clubs you can’t spend more than you generate and for the long term health and future of the European game we want you to have a sustainable business model. If this opulent spending continues more clubs will go into receivership….I guess they believe the bubble is about to burst. Does there not come a point where a club is so debt-ridden nobody will see it as being a viable option to bail them out.


I think the issue arises because there's more to FFP than just assumption of debt, but maybe I should look at the proposed rules myself rather than making second or third-hand inferences. I don't necessarily object to limitations on debt, but I do think that owners should be able to spend freely when that spending does not incur an obligation (other than future salary, within certain bounds) on the club.

Upon reading further, I think we're seeing the same things. I'm not sure if you added more after I responded to your post, or if I just read it a little too quickly the first time and missed some things.

Edited by Mr. Wednesday, 14 February 2012 - 07:08 PM.


#17 The Celtbot

  • 98 posts

Posted 14 February 2012 - 08:13 PM

I am absolutely delighted with this news which has been dragging on for over a year and everybody knew it would come to this. This will give other Scottish teams a chance at European football and possibly attracting better players in the end. I highly doubt Rangers will be gone for good, I would prefer it to be honest. Everything they stand for is a disgrace and having gone off the map would be best for Scotland as a whole. I suppose those bigots would still find a way to channel their hatred some way or another but the vehicle Rangers have become for this is unreal. I'm not saying Celtic is perfect either, but we are definitely more civilized and the crazies are more in the minority overall and don't hold racist/sectarian beliefs.

Rangers fans laughed at us in the mid 90s when we nearly went into administration, they didn't care and had their 9 years in a row of success without competition. It won't be so bad and I for one could care less if they die and fall out of Scottish football for good.

#18 mic99

  • 415 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:01 AM

It has been a brilliant week. Celtic have stated that they don't need Rangers in any way...not sure I completely agree but would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.

Even if the Huns escape administration, the tax case is still hanging over their heads as I understand it. In other words, they are f*cked.





#19 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12078 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:27 AM

It has been a brilliant week. Celtic have stated that they don't need Rangers in any way...not sure I completely agree but would welcome the opportunity to be proven wrong.


They are wrong.

What's the TV revenue for the SPL going to look like if there are no Old Firm matches? What's matchday revenue going to look like for Ross County instead of Rangers? Where does Scotland's UEFA coefficient go when Motherwell is playing in the CL prelims? How many fewer kids outside Scotland become Celtic supporters and start buying shirts when there's no big match to watch on TV?

Fans of both clubs would hate to admit it, but they need each other. Without the Old Firm, Scottish league football is about as notable as the Norwegian or Danish leagues.

#20 Titans Bastard


  • has sunil gulati in his sights


  • 2961 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 11:00 AM

They are wrong.

What's the TV revenue for the SPL going to look like if there are no Old Firm matches? What's matchday revenue going to look like for Ross County instead of Rangers? Where does Scotland's UEFA coefficient go when Motherwell is playing in the CL prelims? How many fewer kids outside Scotland become Celtic supporters and start buying shirts when there's no big match to watch on TV?

Fans of both clubs would hate to admit it, but they need each other. Without the Old Firm, Scottish league football is about as notable as the Norwegian or Danish leagues.


Absolutely.

Frankly, things are grim enough even with Rangers. Even with the Old Firm, the SPL is clearly weaker than the Danish League. Without Rangers....yeesh. On the plus side, the SPL won't have to worry about Motherwell in the CL qualifiers. The SPL has slipped down the UEFA coefficient rankings and is about to plummet when the 07/08 results fall off. They aren't going have two CL entrants for much longer.

#21 Tony the Pony


  • Fork You Schpors


  • 3125 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 11:01 AM

Without Rangers, Celtic would move into the English First Division (or even Premier League). Not sure how they'd do it, but the FA would make that happen.

Thankfully, it's a moot point as Rangers are not going anywhere.

Oh, and fuck 'em! :)

#22 mic99

  • 415 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 11:03 AM

They are wrong.

What's the TV revenue for the SPL going to look like if there are no Old Firm matches? What's matchday revenue going to look like for Ross County instead of Rangers? Where does Scotland's UEFA coefficient go when Motherwell is playing in the CL prelims? How many fewer kids outside Scotland become Celtic supporters and start buying shirts when there's no big match to watch on TV?

Fans of both clubs would hate to admit it, but they need each other. Without the Old Firm, Scottish league football is about as notable as the Norwegian or Danish leagues.


Not sure I agree but share some of your concerns. The SPL is already about as notable as the Danish league. Bandwagon fans don't support SPL teams.

#23 mic99

  • 415 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 11:04 AM

Without Rangers, Celtic would move into the English First Division (or even Premier League). Not sure how they'd do it, but the FA would make that happen.

Thankfully, it's a moot point as Rangers are not going anywhere.

Oh, and fuck 'em! :)


Thats the ideal scenario. I don't think Rangers will disappear but remember, this administration does not include the massive tax case they are going to lose in the near future.

#24 mic99

  • 415 posts

Posted 17 February 2012 - 11:23 AM

also think both celtic and hun matches will be must watch this weekend



#25 Mr. Wednesday

  • 792 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 12:14 AM

It sure looks like one reason for the administration is, in fact, the massive tax case. Especially given that Rangers reportedly jumped when HMRC tried to beat them to the punch on appointing administrators. So I'm a little fuzzy on how you conclude that it does not include said tax case.

#26 mic99

  • 415 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 02:35 AM

It sure looks like one reason for the administration is, in fact, the massive tax case. Especially given that Rangers reportedly jumped when HMRC tried to beat them to the punch on appointing administrators. So I'm a little fuzzy on how you conclude that it does not include said tax case.


My understanding is that administration involves Rangers not paying $9M in VAT and other expenses but not the tax case. Is that not accurate?

#27 Royal Reader

  • 1244 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 09:20 AM

Administration ALWAYS takes into account all creditors. It doesn't mean they will definitely lose the tax case, but HMRC will have to get their share of whatever CVA is agreed, and they have always in the past voted for Insolvency in football cases (it's just that usually, clubs owe enough to other creditors that those firms and people will accept the CVA rather than get nothing).

The irony of HM Government sticking it to the 'Queen's Eleven' not being lost on anyone.

#28 smastroyin


  • simpering whimperer


  • 16714 posts

Posted 19 February 2012 - 05:48 PM

I wonder if Martin Luther knew that he would be affecting the actions of thuggish football fans 450 years in the future?

#29 The Celtbot

  • 98 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 09:04 PM

The police are threatening to not let Rangers play out anymore home games unless they get paid, lol. Apparently the last game has yet to be paid. Their might not be an OF game after all.

#30 CodPiece XL

  • 847 posts

Posted 24 February 2012 - 10:03 PM

I love Old Firm games.....it's the only rivalry worth mentioning in Scottish football. That IS Scottish football regretfully.....be careful what you wish for.

#31 ethangl

  • 2179 posts

Posted 12 June 2012 - 05:00 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/18407309

Well that escalated quickly.

Rangers' footballing fate will be decided by their 11 fellow SPL members.



#32 Cellar-Door


  • SoSH Member


  • 5679 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:54 AM

Bankruptcy doesn't carry any penalty that I'm aware of in American leagues.

As far as I can tell every major American Sports team that filed for bankruptcy, the owner was forced to sell by the other owners, I think you could call that a punishment.

#33 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16470 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:35 AM

If they don't get knocked down to the third division, Scottish football might as well be dead.

#34 fletcherpost


  • sosh's feckin' poet laureate


  • 6487 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 04:29 AM

Scottish football has to get worse before i gets better. Scotland has to get a lot worse before it gets better. I've said it a million times the fortunes of Scotland are linked to the fortunes of Celtic and rangers...but it's not quantifiable so no one has quantified it. But Scotland as a country has to grow. For a nation that sparked the Enlightenment that contributed more to the progress of the 'modern' world than any other country...look it up if you don't believe me - the general state of the average scottish mind is a disgrace - although I accept that the Scottish Enlightenment might not have had anything to do with the average scottish mind of the time, i do think we ought to at least be capable of another period of enlightenment.

The two single biggest entities in Scotland that hold sway with the average, working class Scot is Rangers and Celtic and the average scot is working class...and dumb.
I'd be happy if there was no Celtic or Rangers. Then stupid Glaswegians can tell their stupid kids about the old days and the kids free from some of the distractions might have a chance to develop their brains a little beyond where they are today...which is mush. Seriously all this Pope and Queen stuff it's beyond old. Fine for the outsider, the tourist, the sons of those who got away...but Scotland is a joke nation, glasgow is a joke city, the people of Glasgow a total fuckin joke.

I don't know what is the best thing to happen for the good of Scotland but maybe something good will come out of this. But i think it would be good if one team was not a threat to the other for a certain period of time, Then maybe fans could, even a little bit, think of themselves, their world and the world beyond...which at the moment most are incapable of. I don't know what the endgame is for rangers but if things were to get worse, i would be all for that, becuae in the long run the worse things get for Celtic and or rangers the better they will be for Scotland. And whilst I am no longer a patriot, and no longer 'scottish' - I do have compassion for the people of Scotland, they deserve better in some ways and worse in others. Mass rioting and fighting and death and so forth would be a good thing in the long run. If tens of thousands of rival fans took to the streets here and their and the city went up in flames, this would in the long run be a good thing.

My fear is that this is just a blip and we;'ll be back to the way it was in no time at all. In which case it's up to the martians or some other beings to bomb the fuck out of this city. It's 2012. Most of Glasgow still thinks the Ireland stuff matters. That the Queen matters, that the pope matters. That some battle that took place in the land of the spud matters. Christ we talk about how Americans are dumb...and they are, but compared to the weegies and the average jock the average white American is a fuckin genius.

#35 Mr. Wednesday

  • 792 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:36 AM

As far as I can tell every major American Sports team that filed for bankruptcy, the owner was forced to sell by the other owners, I think you could call that a punishment.


But there's no sporting penalty. In terms of standings, things go on like nothing happened. Contrast with European soccer, where a team that goes into administration suffers a ten point deduction in the standings. It would be like the Dodgers having 12 wins subtracted from their record, or the Coyotes having 20 points deducted.

#36 Cellar-Door


  • SoSH Member


  • 5679 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:54 AM

But there's no sporting penalty. In terms of standings, things go on like nothing happened. Contrast with European soccer, where a team that goes into administration suffers a ten point deduction in the standings. It would be like the Dodgers having 12 wins subtracted from their record, or the Coyotes having 20 points deducted.

Yes, because in soccer they punish the owner with a threat of relegation/not qualifying for Europe, and accordingly lower income and allow him to keep his team. The US leagues don't bother, they don't make an on-field punishment because they instead force the sale of the team, and an on-field punishment would decrease value for the new owner. Both situations are really about punishing the owner and management, the US just takes a scorched earth approach of taking their jobs where Europe is more lenient.

#37 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12078 posts

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:41 PM

If they don't get knocked down to the third division, Scottish football might as well be dead.


The way 10 of those clubs' finances are, they might be dead if they don't readmit Rangers.

I mean, assuming Motherwell gets knocked out of the Champions League before the group stages. :c070:

#38 CodPiece XL

  • 847 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 02:47 PM

Fletch, you missed your calling.....the Scottish Tourism Board is currently hiring.

There is a lot more to this story...this is just the tip.This fiasco has kept me entertained non-stop over the close-season.

Me: So Rangers are dead...
Rangers Supporter: Naw, we are still the same club nothing has changed we are just debt free!
Me: So if and when Rangers are found guilty of the EBT's and having dual contracts they should be punished further?
Rangers Supporter: Naw, it wisnae us...that was the old Rangers not the new Rangers
Me: you can't have it both ways
Rangers Supporter: We r the Peeple!

#39 CodPiece XL

  • 847 posts

Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:14 PM

Just a general comment, have you seen the latest new contract for TV rights in England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-18430036

3 Billion? Scottish fans can only look on in envy. An average player in England will cost about 10M the way the market is going. Why the heck would any decent player want to play in Scotland with these crazy salaries down south. Oh yeah...thats 3 UK billions, not U.S billions...even more ridiculous

And then this:
http://www.guardian....l?newsfeed=true

More than £400m has beenwiped off the value of BSkyB after analysts warned that the company had spent too much on "blowout" TV rights for next year's Premier League.

Edited by CodPiece XL, 14 June 2012 - 05:22 PM.


#40 Royal Reader

  • 1244 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:33 AM

Just a general comment, have you seen the latest new contract for TV rights in England?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-18430036

3 Billion? Scottish fans can only look on in envy. An average player in England will cost about 10M the way the market is going. Why the heck would any decent player want to play in Scotland with these crazy salaries down south. Oh yeah...thats 3 UK billions, not U.S billions...even more ridiculous


I'm pretty sure it's short-scale billions. Look at the specifics... Sky is paying £760m/per and BT is paying £246m/per. I can't offhand think of any field where long-scale is still the standard in the UK, though I'm sure it holds in certain fields of academia. If something's in the mass media, it's US-style billions they're talking about.

#41 CodPiece XL

  • 847 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:23 AM

I'm pretty sure it's short-scale billions. Look at the specifics... Sky is paying £760m/per and BT is paying £246m/per. I can't offhand think of any field where long-scale is still the standard in the UK, though I'm sure it holds in certain fields of academia. If something's in the mass media, it's US-style billions they're talking about.


I stand corrected then. I left Scotland for the U.S many moons ago, 1 billion was long scale in my day..but I was thinking U.S terms initially and then thought wait a minute...that's UK billions, good lord. Either way....the rich keep getting richer.

#42 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12078 posts

Posted 15 June 2012 - 10:23 AM

It's $15 billion in old money.

#43 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16470 posts

Posted 17 June 2012 - 09:37 AM

The way 10 of those clubs' finances are, they might be dead if they don't readmit Rangers.

I mean, assuming Motherwell gets knocked out of the Champions League before the group stages. :c070:

It's an issue of integrity and respect for themselves. If they think another few hundred thousand quid in TV money and gate receipts (let's not forget, the pie gets smaller every year as fewer and fewer people remain interested in the Scottish game) is worth being the concubines of the Old Firm for life then there is no reason to keep Scottish football going. Just disband the clubs except for Celtic and Rangers and those two can apply for admission in the English league under the old FIFA remit that Scotland doesn't have actual first division football.

Let's also remember that part of the reason those clubs are hopeless in the first place was that Rangers practiced financial doping for 20+ years, and I believe several of the clubs are creditors to Rangers.

Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts, Kilmarnock, Dundee United are proud clubs who have experienced significant success not THAT long ago. If they have that little self-respect then shame on them.

Edited by Spacemans Bong, 17 June 2012 - 09:42 AM.


#44 ethangl

  • 2179 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 10:57 AM

Rangers in crisis: Police asked to probe Craig Whyte takeover

http://www.bbc.co.uk...w-west-18582965

#45 Royal Reader

  • 1244 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 06:19 PM

Self-respect wins:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/18577192

#46 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12078 posts

Posted 25 June 2012 - 11:22 PM

I'm shocked. I thought money would be the trump card. From what I've read, it looks like fan pressure on clubs made it nearly impossible to vote for Rangers. Not surprisingly, most of the posters on the Rangers message board I checked out think it's because they're Protestants and Unionists. Because a Protestant Unionist can't get a fair shake in a country that's 1/6 Catholic and 1/3 separatist, I guess.

The SFL votes tomorrow on whether to let Rangers in and in what division. If they don't get it, I expect they'll try for the English pyramid.

#47 Spacemans Bong


  • chapeau rose


  • 16470 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:43 AM

Which will fail miserably. I suspect Platini would love to make an example of Rangers too.

#48 Royal Reader

  • 1244 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 05:23 AM

I'm shocked. I thought money would be the trump card. From what I've read, it looks like fan pressure on clubs made it nearly impossible to vote for Rangers. Not surprisingly, most of the posters on the Rangers message board I checked out think it's because they're Protestants and Unionists. Because a Protestant Unionist can't get a fair shake in a country that's 1/6 Catholic and 1/3 separatist, I guess.

The SFL votes tomorrow on whether to let Rangers in and in what division. If they don't get it, I expect they'll try for the English pyramid.


I can't imagine they won't. The more pertinent question will be the which division one. To be honest, I'm just happy they've seen some actual serious on-field consequence of their years of fucking over their beloved United Kingdom.

#49 DLew On Roids


  • guilty of being sex


  • 12078 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:20 AM

Raith and Falkirk have both said they're voting No on Div. 1.

#50 Royal Reader

  • 1244 posts

Posted 26 June 2012 - 06:47 AM

One would imagine those with realistic SPL aspirations would say no.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users