Rangers Banter Archive November 14 2012

14 Nov 2012 22:13:28
Is it not time that a radical change is made to Scottish football to enable survival. This does not mean juggling numbers in leagues, winter shut downs or even summer football. One of the biggest cost factors that affect teams, on an already tight budget, is cash flow. So look at that first. What about the league cup being commenced at the beginning of December and the initial games being played on a regional sectional basis of 4 teams.[ giving 6 games]. Think of the savings on travel costs, possible cancellations and a boost to crowds over a difficult period. Group examples could be ------- Inverness, Ross Co., Elgin and Peterhead or Motherwell, Airdrie, Hamilton and Albion Rovers. Another benefit would be that grounds with undersoil heating could be used and fixtures amended.
This is just food for thought, but it is important that a Scottish football authority be established that has the full backing of ALL clubs and FANS. They could look at e.g. preferential treatment for clubs on European runs, the top heavy structure that exists at present and even the feasibility of short term financial support for clubs within the association, just to mention a few.
The important point is that action is needed now.

Why do we need change to enable survival?
Teams are making more money than they did last year.
4 more SFL clubs in the spl will be a commercial disaster. Mcleish's report shows a 16 model as not viable. Four more getting spl money and obviously their games not attended or televised. Dropping the football quality. The current bottom 4 would not need to work hard with quality football to avoid relegation.

To 1] Radical change does not just mean numbers in the top league. The current set up does not work and to say that teams are better off is rubbish.
Unless there is change, the only way is a downward spiral.
Green tinted glasses is not the way to look at things, unless your interest is solely at home and not Scottish football as a whole.

Stop this perception rubbish that there's an immediate urgency to change or its meltdown and Armaggeddon.
We need to take a couple of years to think it through and have full commercial analysis of all models, not just this latest SFL idea that's clearly flawed.
We shouldn't consider restructuring until new rangers has worked it's way back to the top tier honestly. Thereafter look at options and oh how the laptop loyals mindset will have changed 180 degrees.
No complete overhaul of the Scottish football system for the benefit of one club.
Scottish football WILL meltdown if Rangers get into top flight earlier than 3 years. The fans put rangers where it is and the fans won't accept any trickery.

The spl at the moment is a commercial disaster lacking leadership dominated by the anti rangers brigade and heading for oblivion

The ONLY way to get people back,cut the cost.
Tam

@2) why do you state that 1) is a Celtic man and not rangers? Because an spl of 16 is the clear decided rangers hidden agenda and a rangers man wouldn't criticize it?

No matter anyway it's never going to happen, or the real SFL agenda of a single body. They're not even getting 14. It'll be reduced to ten in 2 years. Delivering better quality more competitive football from better financed top tier.

14 Nov 2012 21:54:16
Cribari and Perry are both injured and Ally might have to rely on Hegarty and Jig at the heart of the defence against East Stirling.
Will we see Darren Cole drafted into the squad as defensive cover,as he has proved more than capable when called upon in previous seasons.

14 Nov 2012 20:01:09
Listening to Radio Clyde tonight and can't believe the number of callers (mostly celtic fans) that still want Rangers dead and buried. Hope Charles Green keeps his promise of never leading us back into the SPL.

You'd think they'd be more interested in talking about CL progress for their own team as they've a great chance of progressing to the last 16, but would still rather talk about, and wish for, the demise of Rangers. Not all Celtic fans think this way though, the lads i work with want their old nemesis back in the top flight as soon as. They are already missing the Old Firm game. bigbaz

Why? by the time we get to the spl celtic will be scared

Of coarse hell keep his promise thats why hes not sacking ally

Good news, this Saturday's match against East Stirling is on Rangers TV, Pay Per View, £5.99, 12.45 kick-off with build-up starting at 12.25. Geo the Ger

I was feeling sick with the hatred towards Gers being aired without any proper defence. Get Chaz Green on Clyde Phone in.

Listened to Clyde the night before and can't beleive the number or Rangers fans who think their club has been hard done too. Allowed to apply for a place in SFL 3 with no accounts shown and also allowed to buy players before a transfer embargo starts! Only in Scotland!!

They don't all think that at all..when you think how many callers actually get thru on these things. 5 or 6 Celtic fans maybe. Go compare...

Just a couple of pointes to make...#OP - Its probable that CG is more aware of the underlying issues forcing the reconstruction debate than what is known in the public domain..therefore highly likely CG knows the top tier of scottish football wont be called the SPL in three years rather than him giving a more definitive statement such as not playing in the top division ; which of course would contradict his 'staying till champions league is back at ibrox' speech...#2 i agree as a Celtic supporter that i miss the old firm games and recognise the state of game needs the biggest clubs top tier of the game from an economic sense..#3 you are deluded my friend your comments lacks any substance to say the least!..#5 CG will never open himself to a scottish based program and has cleverly stuck to programs outwith the Scottish media and even then confused the life out of listeners and presenters of for example..#6 clearly gers have been given a wide bearth in relation to the three year accounts that you point out but realistically is it any wonder they did? The game in scotland needs the money they generate at least. Also gers fans must feel hard done by regardless of their sins. Their dramatic fall from grace must be very difficult to deal with and its only human nature to feel hard done by as you put it.

I honestly think that its time we stopped all this nonsense that has plagued both sides and, if you both take off the green/blue tinted glasses, would probably admit we would had a far better chance to join EPL years ago if it wasnt for all the secterian bu**s**t thats spewed across football forums by some fans.

@8. As i said not all Celtic fans think the same as those on the Radio Clyde phone in.......Thank you for proving me correct, you're post is spot on. Bigbaz

Re. no8 The spl/sfa know gers will not go back to spl ever again and that's why they're trying to rush changes thru.

Unfortunately for Bigbaz there are people out there (on both sides) like #10 who are absolutely out of touch and believe any well constructed hype that 'supports' their ideals. The idea that the SFA/SPL are advancing reconstruction on the back of GC's comment is immature, ill-informed and smacks of the opinion of the kind of person celtic and rangers can frankly do without!!

Ed would you care to provide your opinion regarding the points ive raised in the OP and in this post? {Ed001's Note - the Scottish leagues have been discussing and researching league reconstruction for years, because of the national team's failure to qualify for major tournaments. It is nothing to do with Rangers or Celtic, or any figure attached to either club.}

14 Nov 2012 19:53:41
Why did the SFA appoint Henry McLeish to conduct an investigation into Scottish football and then not campaign strongly for the SPL and SFL to implement his findings?

I was in the minority who thought that the 10 team top league was the best way forward for Scotland as I think the benefits are there to see. The current 16 team proposal would see a league of 30 games. How can diluting the quality, sharing around more TV money, seeing a drop in crowds due to lower quality opponents and cutting the number of home games be in Scottish footballs best interests? The answer from the SFL: introduce a group stage into the League Cup. While a decent idea in itself, it won't cover the shortfall of 4 less home games a season.

I know there will be many who disagree here but I think the best way forward for Scottish football is a 10-16-16 structure, with the League Cup group stage idea being implemented into the Ramsdens Cup, with the governing bodies merging into the Scottish Football Federation, who deal with all matters and streamline the amount of pen-pushers.

Scottish Premiership: In a few years time, an top flight of Celtic, The Rangers, Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen, Dundee United, Motherwell, St Mirren, Inverness, Ross County, St Johnstone, taking away two "lesser" teams and having 1 team automatically relegated and 9th entering play-offs

-This gives clubs a guaranteed 4 home games a year vs Celtic & The Rangers, as well as 4 local derbies, and crowds should increase with a steady quality of opponent. 2 games less a season but with fewer meaningless end of season games plus minimum 4/6 big games a season, attendances will increase.

-TV money spread across less teams with an extra few hundred thousands filtering through the lower leagues, and with the league condensed,.

Scottish Championship: 16 teams, play each other twice, winner gains promotion to the SP, 2nd, 3rd & 4th enter playoffs, bottom team relegated & 15th into play-offs. All teams enter Ramsdens Cup group stage. More money filtered down from top flight & money from games shown on council TV including play-offs.

Scottish Football League: 16 teams, play each other twice, winner gains promotion to the SC, 2nd, 3rd & 4th enter playoffs, bottom TWO team relegated, 2 junior teams promoted. All teams enter Ramsdens Cup group stage. More money filtered down from top flight, play-offs on TV.

Ramsdens Cup: 32 teams enter, 8 groups of 4, seeded based on last years position, any teams relegated from top flight automatic first seeds. 6 games played, top teams go through to QF, meaning that ALL 42 clubs have minimum 36 game seasons plus Scottish & League cup ties.

Keep the Scottish & League cups in their current format, introduce Friday Night Football permanently, show highlights of all 21 games at weekend & the odd 2nd & 3rd tier game on council TV, as well as hopefully generate more interest in the Junior game plus make the bottom tier more competitive.
Any improvements to be made?

G93

12 years ago there were compelling reasons to move to a top tier self governed league. Those reasons still stand. Imagine a 42 team organization where a third div team with zero fans and income has one vote just like Celtic or rangers? Ridiculous. Voting to get more of Celtic and rangers generated money to pay their board members to top up their beer bellies for doing nothing for the game. The more money given to these clubs the more gets taken out by their boards.
I've never seen so many clearly unfit unhealthy looking men involved in sport anywhere in the world as SFL club board members. {Ed001's Note - how sad and ridiculous do you sound? Every club should have one vote, the only reason not to is greed, pure and simple. You think because your club earns more money it is more important, that is not what makes something important at all. It is your ridiculous thinking that has destroyed Scottish football and turned it into the shambles it is now. One club, one vote, just like it is one person one vote, no matter how much money they are worth. There is no reason for the SPL to exist other than to screw all the other teams over so the Old Firm can keep all the money to themselves. Share more equitably and the competition increases, the level of football rises and the product improves. That is why the English league is so competitive, a lot more money filters down to the lower leagues.}

Couldn't have said it better Ed. Maybe the poster would like to return to an era where he does not have a personal vote at an election as he would not be deemed worthy of having one. The tune may change then. The only way forward for Scottish football is to return to one governing body with the core interests of EVERY club at its heart.

Brian {Ed001's Note - exactly mate, he wouldn't want the Queen to have extra votes because she has more money than him, why should a richer club get more votes?}

@1 While I understand the core of your point, if the teams in the top flight have a higher income via ticket sales then more money can be afforded to filter through the divisions, then I think its win-win for all. Top flight gets a bit wealthier, clubs are able to keep their better players and have better budgets, while smaller clubs can breathe easier while progressing and trying to bridge the gap a bit.

Just gona sidestep the last comment as the ED has already rightfully condemed your jibe, its ridiculous opinions like that which are holding back all of scottish football.

G93

Wrong on a number of issues there Ed and no need at all to lower the tone with personalized insult to an honest opinion.
First, more money gets Down in England because there's a bigger system with more English supporters for all the clubs 70 million people versus Scotland's 5.8million. Loads more in advertising, media contributions and of course billions in TV rights.
I believe in democracy and 100,000 old firm fans have more vote than 1,600 Dundee utd fans etc... On how the Scottish game should be run. Why should an spl team for example get the same TV money for 2 televised games a season when another team has 25 televised games and 300 times the home viewers?
I believe in cold capitalism, it works. You're espousing communism which has been tried as an economic model and proven harshly to not work. Feeding the SFL chairmen's beer bellies. Scottish football needs to slim down to the 5.8million people level and leave the mimic England behind. {Ed001's Note - rubbish, it is nothing to do with number of people, if they went on your system none of that money would filter down anyway. Capitalism doesn't work, have you not noticed that? You are obviously in a fantasy oblivious world where the world's economies haven't collapsed due to the ludicrous capitalist system we employ. As for communism, try looking across the water to the US, US sports employ a very communist system, it works for them. Your method has already failed miserably, only fool keeps repeating the same errors and expects differing outcomes.}

14 Nov 2012 23:30:28
G93 @ 1)

Ouch this hurts my head; however some good points but current system not working, the Celtic not releasing attendance from last match, CL money, going to suppliment missing revinue from no bum's on seats.

SLF proposal looks good, like the Ramsden cup proposal G93(are you a Celt as you refer to Rangers as The Rangers), the footbal club will always be Rangers to a true fan no matter what has happend.

The four game set up currently is waited in favor of the old firm; if the new set up was approved it would benfit the other clubs as it would allow attendances to flatter (treat them mean keep them keen), two games less more likely to get the same attendances over two games, enhancing TV coverage.

The only addition to current proposal is I would add two challenge matches between Rangers v Celtic with no point allocated within the league setup. This would cover lost revenue and appease the TV mogals.

Carling1873

Rangers thinking turned Scottish football into the shambles it currently is.
Before Rangers demise last year the SPL was a great success and the SFA was well run. The only restructuring recommended in expert reports was to reduce spl to 10 to increase top level quality.
It's simple, clubs just need to spend less than they earn. {Ed001's Note - the SPL has never been a success, nor has any footballing expert claimed it to be. I don't know where you got that lunatic notion from.}

@5 I think there is a lesser risk with going to 10 than 16, and with some clubs' situations getting even worse it makes sense that safeguarding will provide more stability than expansion. Think the SFL have missed a trick with the groups idea, my dad was telling me how the League cup used it years ago at the start of the season and played it over a few weeks and it proved to be popular. Although the standard would be lower, it would guarantee teams like East Stirling with a visit from a Partick Thistle or Dunfermline and generate more interest within the lower leagues.

The reason I think 10 teams would work was to favour the smaller teams in the top flight. I think it would be good for clubs in a 10 team league to have decent gates guaranteed 4/6 times a season than use mind games� and hedge their bets lol.

Always thought Celtic & The Rangers should play a game a season in America and Australia to keep their profiles up and generate a bit of income.
And yes I am a Celtic man, was just seeking a wider view on the matter.

G93

If the top 12 teams in Scotland playing each other isn't a success how could the top 16 possibly be a success, bring in higher gate receipts? higher TV money ? It's not possible! There only would be 4 lower quality games each week. Ridiculous notion.
Any restructuring that involves increasing top tier and/ or reducing number of SFL leagues is quite simply an agenda to rush rangers back to top tier to get more football money into Rangers to help that single particular club. ( rangers greed and priority over everyone else, same as usual there, we are the people and all that).

Ed's reply at 4)...."rubbish it's nothing to do with numbers of people"......lol...England's 70 million ensures more gate receipts through all divisions combined versus Scotland's divisions combined. More money at the turnstyles tens of millions more viewers in England and worldwide generating TV income....... IT'S ALL ABOUT THE NUMBERS ED. {Ed001's Note - don't talk soft, you haven't understood the point at all. It doesn't matter how many people you have if you don't share the money fairly the league will not be competitive. Talk of how much money there is to split to begin with is just utter nonsense from people who don't understand what they are talking about. Numbers are just numbers, you have to cut your cloth accordingly, but, if everyone has to, the league becomes closer and less about the money and more about the coaching etc.}

My, my, my, hasn't this economic debate got a bit warm. The thing about economics is that there is no definitive answer to the debate. If anyone is old enough to remember the days when there was a first and second division of 18 and (I think) 19 teams, they may recall why that system was changed. Back in 1974 it was deemed that there were too many meaningless games towards the end of the season, and there were concerns over falling attendances. The key here though is the word �meaningless'. What the authorities were saying was that there was a need for greater competition. After all, sport with no competition isn't really sport. In the ten years before reconstruction Celtic won the league 9 times, Rangers once. OK, it was the Jock Stein era but we may come back to that. In the ten years after reconstruction Celtic won 4 titles, Rangers 3, Aberdeen 3 and Dundee Utd 1. In the season immediately after these statistics Celtic pipped Hearts by 3 goals to the title. It must have worked then. If sharing the spoils is anything to judge by, there was indeed more competition. Our club sides were expected to do well in Europe and the national side, in my opinion, should have returned from Argentina with a prize, not necessarily a win but we had a great side then, capable of a top four finish. So what happened? I hate to say it but SDM happened. Rangers started to spend money like there was no tomorrow. But it was worse than just spending money. I mentioned the Jock Stein era. During that time Rangers and Celtic were accused of taking the best players from other Scottish teams. They did to a great extent but the difference was that the money they used to buy the players was circulating in Scottish football. I'm ignoring stuff about beer bellied chairmen, that comment deserves contempt. SDM was buying players from England and abroad. So, money that once circulated in Scottish football was now leaking from Scottish football. All you students of economics will know that is not a good sign. If home made products are not being purchased then they won't be made. Many British companies will testify to that. Between 1967 and 1972 Rangers and Celtic sent teams to two European finals each. Each was victorious on one occasion. Of the squads sent to these games only Gerry Neef was not Scottish. Can you imagine that happening now? No? Why not because this is at the very root of the problems in or game. There was a time when Dundee Utd could go to Barcelona and win, now the international press are full of Celtic scraping a win against them at Celtic Park. How far have we fallen?

In the 26 years since SDM started his gold rush, Rangers have won 17 titles, Celtic 9 and nobody else had a look in. In short, competition I the SPL has been destroyed. Various attempts to correct the situation have resulted in more power and more money going to the Old Firm and competition being crushed further. And all the time Rangers and Celtic have complained that they can't compete in Europe because the national league is weak. For relatively large clubs like Aberdeen and Hearts most seasons are as good as over by the time autumn arrives. There is no incentive for the fans to attend meaningless matches - that was obvious 40 years ago and here we are again. The difference this time is that admission is ridiculously expensive when compared to wages. Another economic lesson, demand is no use unless it is effective � ie that people have the money to buy. The bottom line is that there needs to be a will to make positive change. The Old Firm has shown in the past that they can use their muscle to effect. Now is the time for them to do so for the good if the game. Competition is the key. That will get people back to games, supporting their team and aspiring to play for their team. That's what will save our national game. Money, in the long run will treat football as it did darts and snooker. OK for a while but once it finds a market with a better return, it's off leaving a trail of debris behind it. That could be a hard economic lesson to learn.

@6 How do you judge success? The national team haven't qualified for a single competition since the SPL was formed - is that a success?
JMG

@9 the total population of the UK is 63 million so how can England have a population of 70 million?
JMG

@10 You make a fair number of good points (competition, ticket pricing, buying foreigners etc - you are wrong about Darts though, that is enjoying the greatest financial boom in its history and prize money has never been higher. It was the BEEB that almost killed it off in the late eighties when they removed it from their schedule and most of the sponsors pulled out, not lack of competition - Jocky, Bristow, Lowe, Lazarenko, etc).

However, the SPL has never been designed (EVER) to promote competition within the top tier. It was solely created by, and for the benefit of, two clubs. We (Rangers and Celtic) 'destroyed' the chance of continued realistic competition within the SPL the second we created it between us and the consequences of our actions are only coming to fruition now. An 11-1 voting structure weighted in our favour and completely excluding the SFL clubs altogether (hardly democratic - nothing of importance changed unless it suited the Old Firm, normally economically, and that is still the case and still as unjust and undemocratic). 80% of the TV income plus more or less guaranteed 1st or 2nd spot to take the lion's share of the SPL winnings every year didn't help the other clubs either. Neither did the entrance criteria for our more provincial clubs as they had to instantly laden themselves with masses of debt just to get their foot in the door (Falkirk didn't until they could afford it to their great credit). Within one, possibly two seasons of its inception none of the other teams retained a realistic possibility of winning the league any more and that has simply been compounded year on year as the financial gap widened further and further between the 'Old Firm' and the 'also rans'. You alluded to it yourself with the highly pertinent point you made about both clubs not keeping the money within Scotland and buying the best players from within our leagues.

40 out of 42 professional clubs being excluded from power, influence, privilege, and economic parity does not a competitive system make my friend. The answer to our current woes does lie with the Old Firm though, as you say, but it is unlikely that they will promote the good of the game over their own greed and ambition (neither of us). One governing body looking after the best interests of ALL of our clubs instead of just two, a genuinely democratic one club one vote system, a fair split of all TV and league revenues, play-off's and a pyramid system (to avoid the meaningless games you mentioned) allowing entry into the 3rd Division would be the way to increase competition throughout all levels of our game. However, it won't happen any time soon as, because of the voting structure, Celtic (if Rangers were still in the SPL they would have acted in exactly the same way) would have to agree to it and that is hardly likely to happen (and I can't really blame them, or their fans, for not wanting to either). We actually need the SFA to stand up, have the bottle to be counted and tell both governing bodies to amalgamate and do what is in the best interests of the Scottish game, but that is even less likely than Celtic, and/or Rangers if the roles were reversed or they remained together in the same league, democratically sharing the power and wealth within the game having only secured it for themselves 12 years ago. It would cost both of them too much financially.

Brian

Brian, read again and you'll notice that I never said darts failed because of the lack of competition. It's about money and no matter how you dress it up, money gravitates towards the highest return.

That apart I think we are singing from the same song sheet. Where we differ is that you seem to feel that the SFA should take the bull by the horns to implement change for the benefit of all clubs. You don't think the Old Firm will spearhead change and, sadly, I think you may well be right. They enjoy so much power � market power � and power is money. I've witnessed the busloads of supporters travelling along the main routes into Glasgow while Dundee, Kilmarnock, Hearts or Dunfermline are at home. There may little that the clubs or the SFA can do to change that though. When all is said and done, it's about consumer preferences � another economic cliché.

What makes fans want to pay extra to travel longish distances to see a team they have no local connection with? Success, I would guess. People are attracted to success. I seem to remember an increase in the number of Aberdeen fans in the Edinburgh area in the early 1980s. Perhaps a fairer distribution of the fan base comes from a greater share of the prizes. That's competition at work.

Given the choice, businesses don't want competition. They want the market to themselves. Monopoly power it's called. Where a business is based on a sport, it is imperative that there is competition. Monopoly power should be impossible. Nevertheless the Old Firm dominate the Scottish game so much that they enjoy a level of monopoly (or oligopoly if you want to be technical). History seems to say that the SFA or SFL are powerless to act against them in the way the Competition Commission would treat a commercial enterprise. It's then down to the Old Firm. They have to volunteer to give up some of this power otherwise there will be no league left for anyone to play in. You rightly point out that this is their mess so morally, it's their move to put things back on track. They can't rely on admission to the English leagues if the Scottish game falls apart. There is no enthusiasm for the Old Firm moving to the English Leagues. Not in England anyway. I live just outside Birmingham (born and brought up in Scotland) and you won't get Wolves or even Walsall moving over to allow them into the league. Even the Conference would be hard to walk into so a successful application to gain admittance to the English system could see them maybe 11 or 12 tiers away from the Premier League.

It would seem to me that the interests of the Old firm are best served in making the Scottish system work. Both these clubs grew to be global brands at a time when they were strong in a competitive Scottish league. That should tell them something. They both still have power, no matter which league Rangers find themselves in. If that power is some form of monopoly then that is only a bad thing if their power is misused. It's time for them to use it for the greater good of the Scottish game else there may not be a Scottish game much longer.

JMK

Excellent post JMK, we are singing from the same hymn sheet (coming from an athiest, lol) it seems. Apologies re the darts reference, must have misread it.

Brian

14 Nov 2012 19:12:34
Any links to the Scotland game tonight

It's on ESPN so probably not

14 Nov 2012 18:46:00
One thing that tells me Charlie boy is skint is this. Why sell off a large percentage of the company just now for a relative pittance when he can wait until it really is in a much stronger position and a lot more?

This one has a long way to run once we see past the smoke and mirrors...

You have a vivid imagination. He said when he took over that he would have a share issue. He is having a share issue.

He said he would have share issue to make his money. To pay him and his consortium and leave the club in the hands of fans and walk away. Don't be surprised when he does this.

14 Nov 2012 08:56:55
Are non-executive Directors on a salary?

No, they are kind of independant & not an employee

@1 Wonder if they get share's. Just a thought.
Tam

They're not bloody independent!

John Greig was a non executive director and he took about £40K in EBT's !

Non exec do get agreed amount.

Non exec can walk away at any time,u are ther only as an advisor and under no obligation to do what the owner or chairman says hence the reason u have no vote in Agm etc. Walter has been clever in this move it gives him inside info whilst not putting money on the table

13 Nov 2012 21:37:12
Why is the car park not listed as part of the assets has this been sold off .Also were is amran he is not listed .The share issue plan that is going around is this real or a joke .It looks like some kid has made This up.

It was sold.

Am pretty sure Malcolm Murray stated the car park was defnitely part of the assets. Can anybody confirm?