Edstar101

What will you do if new Rangers are allowed straight into SPL?  

255 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Taking into account the Scotsman article re: how Scottish football would fair, I ran the figures myself based on Saints...

With a few assumptions, but nothing unrealistic, I actually reckon Saints would be better off without Rangers! Feel free to discuss. Full opinion here http://bit.ly/LevNWJ

The spreadsheet with my working is here - If you think it is wrong please tell me so! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...GhpaS1MYl8wYlE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking into account the Scotsman article re: how Scottish football would fair, I ran the figures myself based on Saints...

With a few assumptions, but nothing unrealistic, I actually reckon Saints would be better off without Rangers! Feel free to discuss. Full opinion here http://bit.ly/LevNWJ

The spreadsheet with my working is here - If you think it is wrong please tell me so! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...GhpaS1MYl8wYlE

Thanks, Stevensan. Essentially what I have supposed all along, just havent bothered working out the sums. Figures are essentially guess work, but the exact shakedown is irrelevant/unknowable. The important part is that clubs survive in the first div on enforced reductions to revenue, why cant they do like wise at the top table, for all the reasons listed in your blog?

Keep up the good work.

COYS (& FTOF)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Stevensan. Essentially what I have supposed all along, just havent bothered working out the sums. Figures are essentially guess work, but the exact shakedown is irrelevant/unknowable. The important part is that clubs survive in the first div on enforced reductions to revenue, why cant they do like wise at the top table, for all the reasons listed in your blog?

Keep up the good work.

COYS (& FTOF)

We hear figures ain't your strong point :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking into account the Scotsman article re: how Scottish football would fair, I ran the figures myself based on Saints...

With a few assumptions, but nothing unrealistic, I actually reckon Saints would be better off without Rangers! Feel free to discuss. Full opinion here http://bit.ly/LevNWJ

The spreadsheet with my working is here - If you think it is wrong please tell me so! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...GhpaS1MYl8wYlE

Although I cannot see your spreadsheet (gives a doc not found error) I disagree with your assertion that Saints, or any other SPL club, would be better off financially without Rangers. I wish that you were right, but just can't agree.

In my posts 1085, 1093, 1100 on this thread I worked out a rationale for the TV deal (1085), compiled a table of each club's P&L and Debt (1093) and modelled the impact to each club of having no Rangers (1100).

The thing that I didn't do was to work out what upside there might be from not having Rangers, in the case of Saints if it was Dundee then that might be significant, for other clubs less so. There's also a better chance of a run in Europe without Rangers, but that only benefits one club not all.

The figures (apart from where noted as guesses) are all correct, it's the assumptions behind them that matter and please feel free to challenge those or to suggest ways of improving the model.

If there was as you suggest no impact from having no Rangers why do you suppose many of the Club Chairmen are chewing their nails wondering which way to vote? The poorer ones are looking at severe cost-cutting, including immediate staff and player reductions, if there's no Rangers next year. You can deduce that based on the TV deal alone...

Edited by babychunder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Babychunder

Went back and read your posts - good work - somehow missed those before.

Interested how we came to some of the same conclusions but with vastly different numbers though.

My workings and assumptions were based on:

Current commercial revenue worth 18million, distributed between the clubs with all getting 4% and then between 18% and 4.5% depending on league position (SPL website was the source for this)

Without Rangers I reduced commercial income by 32%, which is the Deloitte estimate for Rangers commercial worth to the SPL. (bbc report)

I assumed 2 Rangers home games/season.

I took the average attendance against Rangers against the overall average (this differed to yours where you took the max attendance, not the actual)

I redistributed the commercial revenue on a more equal share, to mimic what will happen without the Old Firm majority controlling voting rights. This reduces the amount lost by each club in TV revenue to around 300k for positions 3 - 12.

I then worked out the difference in attendances and assumed Rangers fans paid 25quid each. This worked out as 380,000 out of a turnover of 4million, or 9% of turnover

I then looked at attendances before the Old Firm dominance and compared to current attendances. I also worked out how many extra fans per game Saints would have to attract to make up for the shortfall in revenue from Rangers games. This came to just 849 fans a game.

Does anyone really think that is unrealistic with a competitive, open league, and no Rangers to take away thousands of fans from Perth every weekend?? Sure, it might take a few years, but in the long term, to me, it looks a no brainer...

Trying to the google link again

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AvFkqcZj4WWUdExmT3RTZHBOcEZ6TGhpaS1MYl8wYlE

If it doesnt work copy and paste this... need to combine the two lines

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet

/ccc?key=0AvFkqcZj4WWUdExmT3RTZHBOcEZ6TGhpaS1MYl8wYlE

Edited by stevensan
website address
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If there was as you suggest no impact from having no Rangers why do you suppose many of the Club Chairmen are chewing their nails wondering which way to vote? The poorer ones are looking at severe cost-cutting, including immediate staff and player reductions, if there's no Rangers next year. You can deduce that based on the TV deal alone...

Why?

Because most of the SPL chairman have no ambition and are not forward thinking. The status quo is fine for them, and I would wager a bet some of the chairman are getting very rich with various loans to the clubs, which they know will be paid back (with interest) and are secured with floating charges over the assets. Look at Portsmouth. Despite two CVA's they are still deep in debt to their previous owners who had floating charges and are still owed 30million plus.

Look at my sheet and look at the crowd numbers for Dundee Utd and Aberdeen... look at that potential. Is it any wonder they are two of the clubs at the forefront of the No Rangers campaign?

The initial shortfall is circa 10% across the league (Celtic lose out a LOT more than this). However, the potential for growth after that is huge. If it stays as it is crowds will continue to fall. If it changes the worst case scenario is a 10% initial decrease with a potential for massive growth. (not taking into account the big black cloud that is people not renewing season tickets... that could easily be more than 10% alone) That's a risk that is well worth taking...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr Green - what have the supporters of RFC got to do with this. Get into the real world please. Of the club, the administrators and the supporters - the view of the supporters is the LEAST relevant.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18319367

Green's statement read: "The club, the administrators [Duff & Phelps] and most importantly the supporters have taken the view that any sanction against Rangers - due entirely to the misdeeds of individuals no longer at the club - should be proportionate"

Proportionate - OK then - if the misdeeds of RFC are not tantamount to murder then let's say they are manslaughter. In both cases the nature of the sentence tends to be the same - albeit with different duration and conditions. So lets forget fines and exclusion orders. If the sentence for the ultimate crime (murder) is life imprisonment and this equates to getting kicked out of the SPL for ever, then the sentence for manslaughter is imprisonment - but not permanent - so equivalent to getting kicked out of the SPL for a period of say 3yrs (just so happens to be the length of time a RFC starting in div3 would take to get back into the SPL). So proportionate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Mr Green - what have the supporters of RFC got to do with this. Get into the real world please. Of the club, the administrators and the supporters - the view of the supporters is the LEAST relevant.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18319367

Green's statement read: "The club, the administrators [Duff & Phelps] and most importantly the supporters have taken the view that any sanction against Rangers - due entirely to the misdeeds of individuals no longer at the club - should be proportionate"

Proportionate - OK then - if the misdeeds of RFC are not tantamount to murder then let's say they are manslaughter. In both cases the nature of the sentence tends to be the same - albeit with different duration and conditions. So lets forget fines and exclusion orders. If the sentence for the ultimate crime (murder) is life imprisonment and this equates to getting kicked out of the SPL for ever, then the sentence for manslaughter is imprisonment - but not permanent - so equivalent to getting kicked out of the SPL for a period of say 3yrs (just so happens to be the length of time a RFC starting in div3 would take to get back into the SPL). So proportionate.

Yup. What he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are Duff and Phelps carrying out their statutory/egal requirement to get the best deal for the creditors by not selling Ibrox and other assets?

There is an argument that the the potential new owners and the existence of the club are being looked after more than the creditors. If their argument is that Rangers survival means future tax payments to HMRC then that's not necessarily true since football clubs don't pay that much tax generally speaking since they trade between profits and tax losses deliberately in an attempt to keep teir tax payments at a minimum. In Rangers case we'll see soon how much they should have paid and what they did or will pay, not much p/£. Saints have probably paid more than these giants of world soccer. :)

So I think Ibrox should be sold to Disney Land for £150m thereby repaying their creditors in full and the area revitalised as a mass tourism destination with a giant neon statue on top of Mickey Mouse to highlight the Glasgow skyline and the way Rangers dealt with their finances. Rangers could then play as tenants at Hampden or Firhill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. What did Mickey Mouse get for his Christmas ?

A. An Ally McCoist watch. boom boom !

:)

To be fair though Mr. McCoist as we should call him now is probably a much stronger character for all this to match his gregarious outgoing manner and so I could see him getting a good TV job now like say Question Of Sport or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

To be fair though Mr. McCoist as we should call him now is probably a much stronger character for all this to match his gregarious outgoing manner and so I could see him getting a good TV job now like say Question Of Sport or something.

I dunno if I could sit their again watching Sue Barker absolutely creaming her knickers when Super Sally opened his gob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current commercial revenue worth 18million, distributed between the clubs with all getting 4% and then between 18% and 4.5% depending on league position (SPL website was the source for this)

I think the SPL takes a slice of that, to pay their expenses? e.g. Blazerati Bonuses and so on.

Without Rangers I reduced commercial income by 32%, which is the Deloitte estimate for Rangers commercial worth to the SPL. (bbc report)

Should that not be reduced by 67%, did Deloitte (which is an anagram of toileted, BTW) not say the OF as a pair were 67% of the value?

I took the average attendance against Rangers against the overall average (this differed to yours where you took the max attendance, not the actual)

That's probably a better assumption than mine :wink:

I redistributed the commercial revenue on a more equal share, to mimic what will happen without the Old Firm majority controlling voting rights. This reduces the amount lost by each club in TV revenue to around 300k for positions 3 - 12.

I never thought of that, so my numbers may be a wee bit high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Living in England - one thing I don't really get is the lack of mention of any of this in the English press. In my Sunday Times today - not a word. I'm not sure what this says - other than that nobody outside of Scotland gives a monkeys about this. So much for the attraction of Rangers (and Celtic) to an English and worldwide audience. Why do Sky pay for televising Scottish football? - because the hatred and hostility of the OF games makes good viewing? Thing is of course, that outside of Scotland few really understand what lies beneath the very fervent surface of OF games. If they did could there not actually be a call for televising of OF games to be stopped as it perpetrates the vile undercurrent and actually promotes sectarianism in Scotland - sectarian songs sung or not.

I also live in England and have also noticed just how little coverage this has been getting - especially on Sky Sports News where, other than the very top line bits about the club being in administration etc, it's been completely ignored. There seems to be a general awareness down here that the club are in administration, but there's very little understanding of (or interest in) just how deep and serious the layers of cheating have been.

It seems to say a lot about how little people outside Scotland genuinely care about the Old Firm, and doesn't do much for the theory that people down here would love to have them involved in their league. For all the propaganda that gets peddled in the west of Scotland about the Old Firm derby being the biggest in the world, I've seen zero evidence of that since I moved down south. Of all the football fans I know down here, none of them have any interest in watching it (myself included). At best it's considered a circus sideshow where has-beens kick lumps out of each other. Far from being in awe of it, people actually consider it a bit of a joke.

Incidentally... instead of spending money uncovering the behaviour of fans in Poland and Ukraine, I'd love to see the BBC actually expose the despicable behaviour of fans on its own doorstep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to say a lot about how little people outside Scotland genuinely care about the Old Firm, and doesn't do much for the theory that people down here would love to have them involved in their league. For all the propaganda that gets peddled in the west of Scotland about the Old Firm derby being the biggest in the world, I've seen zero evidence of that since I moved down south. Of all the football fans I know down here, none of them have any interest in watching it (myself included). At best it's considered a circus sideshow where has-beens kick lumps out of each other. Far from being in awe of it, people actually consider it a bit of a joke.

Incidentally... instead of spending money uncovering the behaviour of fans in Poland and Ukraine, I'd love to see the BBC actually expose the despicable behaviour of fans on its own doorstep.

I would be a start if the Glasgow based media actually exposed something about the not-so mighty Rangers and its fans, instead of just grudgingly reacting to other journalists findings. The silence is deafening most of the time.

If the bigotry could somehow be magically removed from the old firm games, then it would lose much of its significance within Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen thompson today saying he doubts a newco will be voted back into the SPL due to the feelings of chairmen and what has gone on at ibrox. Lack of any sense of responsibility, and with rangers going to the courts has hardened the opinions.

Let's just hope rangers implode and leave no where for them. Maybe an Atlantic league of one and have a burial at sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen thompson today saying he doubts a newco will be voted back into the SPL due to the feelings of chairmen and what has gone on at ibrox. Lack of any sense of responsibility, and with rangers going to the courts has hardened the opinions.

Let's just hope rangers implode and leave no where for them. Maybe an Atlantic league of one and have a burial at sea.

Please, please, if only...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This subject was brought up on question time last night, sadly no discussion took place, probably due to it being a political programme

a very fleeting mention and not followed up...even although QT is not a political programme as such - it is for debate of topical issues. Clearly the state of RFC is not deemed of sufficient interest to the rest of the UK to merit an audience question. And they are probably correct in that view - as said - nobody down here really cares.

Edited by henryhallsdanceband
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celtic been at it too? Very interesting read here....

http://williampoole.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/celtic-employees-tax-avoidance/

and if so, might give the strongest indication yet on Celtics thoughts on their rivals behaviour!

Pretty sure Celtic admitted trying it with Juninho but pulled it when they were unsure how legal it was. They then declared this to SFA/SPL. That blog is just a rant from a Rangers supporter trying to deflect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celtic been at it too? Very interesting read here....

http://williampoole.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/celtic-employees-tax-avoidance/

and if so, might give the strongest indication yet on Celtics thoughts on their rivals behaviour!

Yeah, this has been covered. Celtic inherited junihnos contract which had an ebt loyalty payment (not a per game payment). Celtic, fearing this was illegal took advice, payed tax to hmrc and informed the sfa of the agreement. Nothing like the rangers case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...