Charlie-Brown Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Gate sharing didn't stop till 1980. The Premier League started in 1975/76. Yet Septic managed to win 9 in a row under these so-called "enhanced" competitive conditions immediately prior to the brave new world of a 10 team league! Celtic had a great team and manager that's the difference, also clubs like Killie, Hibs, Aberdeen, Dunfermline all challenged them as runners up at various points. Celtic only won 1 title between 1945-65 then Stein arrived. Celtic didn't buy their 9 in a row unlike Rangers massive spending in the later period. Edited March 17, 2014 by Charlie-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Celtic had a great team and manager that's the difference, also clubs like Killie, Hibs, Aberdeen, Dunfermline all challenged them as runners up at various points. Celtic only won 1 title between 1945-65 then Stein arrived. Celtic didn't buy their 9 in a row unlike Rangers massive spending in the later period. Quite. So if they didn't buy their sequence and RFCRIP did, your competition argument doesn't stack up. Runners-up to RFCRIP included ourselves, the sheep and Motherwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Stage 1. Announce a new structure that will start in 5 years time. That gives clubs time to sort finances. Stage 2 - 16 team league home and away with set success criteria based on competitive nature of league, but not based on OF helicopter Sundays. Remains in place for 5 years. Stage 3 - if no significant change in competitiveness, straight to summer football and play offs including at least the top 4 clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Jammy even the most fervent capitalists in the United States of America have grasped the concept that it is strong competition that drives and maintains interest in sport and ultimately is also actually "good for business" that is why they having previously learned the hard way that too much wealth imbalances can destroy competition, create monopolies and lead to waning interest, lower crowds, less sponsorship etc if it all becomes too predictable. Their solution are such structuralist measures such as revenue sharing, centralised ticketing and merchandising sales, player draft selection, team squad limits and salary capping etc etc. All designed primarily to keep competition stronger than it would be if you simply let the richest monies interests Hoover up all the talent and trophies and weakening competitors. Good shout. The 'closed shop' of American sports is more competitive than our system. Anyway, instead of sharing receipts, why does the league not charge a levy of a few quid on every season ticket sold which can then be redistributed evenly throughout all the top clubs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Stage 1. Announce a new structure that will start in 5 years time. That gives clubs time to sort finances. Stage 2 - 16 team league home and away with set success criteria based on competitive nature of league, but not based on OF helicopter Sundays. Remains in place for 5 years. Stage 3 - if no significant change in competitiveness, straight to summer football and play offs including at least the top 4 clubs. Sadly it'll never happen. I do like the idea of sorting out finances. I do think it is crucial that clubs in the SPL and Championship should be forced to reign in all debts and clear the decks - i think the SFA or SPL should facilitate a "get well" program for clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Like most, I've known for many years that our game was slightly askew towards one of two. A few years back when the computer was hacked to make sure a title decider could not be played between the two was when I stopped caring about league games and hoped only for good cup runs. Admitting that as a country we couldn't guarantee peoples safety on a weekend afternoon should have been a wake up call for all involved. Association, police and government. No one batted an eyelid. The Newco debacle should have made it clear. Finally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterion Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) From earlier today... scotDMsport?@scotDMsport Dave King statement on #Rangers expected this afternoon... more to follow. Reply Retweet Favorite Where's the statement... and the deeds! Edited March 17, 2014 by Mysterion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homme Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Expect them to win tonight but stuck a cheeky 5er on Albion at 18s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Douglas Fraser ?@BBCDouglasF 2m Truce between Dave King + #Rangers board: at least until we see business review. That's within 1 month + before season ticket renewal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 RANGERS BOARD REJECT KING PROPOSAL The Rangers board have rejected Dave King's plan to ring-fence season-ticket cash, the former director claims. King met with the ruling Ibrox regime on Friday for showdown talks about the club's worrying financial state. The club responded 24 hours later with a statement describing the meetings as a "helpful, open and honest discussion". But the South Africa-based businessman's proposed scheme - that would have protected season-ticket cash from being used to repay a controversial £1.5million loan handed to the new League One champions by investors Sandy Easdale and Laxey partners - was knocked-back by the board. The loan agreement is secured against the Albion car park and Edmiston House facility and will earn Laxey a £150,000 profit in either cash or shares when it is repaid next year. King says the board have addressed many of his concerns about the fallen Glasgow giants' future but revealed the two sides could not find common ground on the topic of season-ticket revenue. In a statement, the Castlemilk-born multi-millionaire said: "The only significant issue that I discussed with the board that is not contained in the board statement is the Laxey loan facility. "Mr [Norman] Crighton, on behalf of the board, made a forcible argument as to why the board considered and approved the terms of the Laxey loan. "The board considered that a combination of legal risk and the current financial position justified the loan terms. "I replied that a consequence of the board's view of the high risk to anyone advancing funds to the club is the board's fiduciary responsibility to ring fence any season-ticket money that is received (even if fans don't request this) unless sufficient committed financing is in place at that time. "The board did not agree with me on this logical consequence but I believe that my observation is correct." King looked set to go to war with the board when he advised fans to withhold season-ticket cash and instead pay it into a trust fund which would then drip feed the money to the club. He made his original call after complaining about a lack of transparency about the club's financial state following last year's £14.4million loss and rumours of downsizing to boss Ally McCoist's squad, which King feared would allow Celtic to rack up "10 in a row". On top of his concerns about season-ticket cash, the former director - who lost a £20million investment when the club was liquidated in 2012 - also expressed fears that the board would mortgage off Ibrox and Murray Park to secure fresh finance. But he added: "The board has now publicly dealt with each of the above. The board has affirmed that it regards competition with Celtic and in Europe as being its continued aim and that this outlook will be reflected in the business review that will be published within the next month. "Crucially, that will allow fans sufficient time to consider the review prior to investing in season tickets but it is also important that the board has now confirmed categorically that they will not use Ibrox or Murray Park as security for any form of fund raising. "No one should be in any doubt that this public statement and commitment is significant and should be appreciated as such. "Statements from a public company board are intended to be relied upon so in a couple of weeks we can expect a business review that will reflect the board's ambition and a funding plan to achieve this. "We can also rely on the fact that if circumstances change the board would be bound to advise the public in advance of this." He added: "The board has now communicated with the fans and has committed to do so in more detail within a month. "Let us give the board time to comply with its commitment. "I advised the board that I would wish to be a part of the required fund-raising as a component of a united fan group investment vehicle. This will require further discussion after release of the review in the next month." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toxteth O'Grady Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Sounds like King is tip toeing away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Sounds like King is tip toeing away Yup, King is all about keeping the view from the Rangers fans as the potential saviour of Rangers but never getting involved when needed, only being just about there. Edited March 17, 2014 by jamboinglasgow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Dan Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 What a waste of an airfare that was. A King with out a kingdom how embarrassing for the poor sod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Quite. So if they didn't buy their sequence and RFCRIP did, your competition argument doesn't stack up. Runners-up to RFCRIP included ourselves, the sheep and Motherwell. Celtics 9 in a row was the result of them having one of the best manager and team combinations in Europe at the time. Celtic won 10 out of 30 titles in the 30 years between 1946 and 1975 but only 1 in the first 19 seasons, their most successful era followed their biggest ever barren spell. The league as a whole was more competitive and less an Old Firm lock in than it has been since the Souness/Murray era began the ruin of our game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Celtics 9 in a row was the result of them having one of the best manager and team combinations in Europe at the time. Celtic won 10 out of 30 titles in the 30 years between 1946 and 1975 but only 1 in the first 19 seasons, their most successful era followed their biggest ever barren spell. The league as a whole was more competitive and less an Old Firm lock in than it has been since the Souness/Murray era began the ruin of our game. Uh huh. The maximum wage was abolished in 1961. The most competitive non-OF title race after that was 1965, until the New Firm came along. Should we bring it back too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Uh huh. The maximum wage was abolished in 1961. The most competitive non-OF title race after that was 1965, until the New Firm came along. Should we bring it back too? You cannot by law cap individuals wages however you can cap a clubs overall playing staff budget as a ratio of their income which is an indirect cap on wage levels. We need far more stringent financial controls firstly to protect clubs from their own worst excesses but also as a way to prevent unrestricted money power destroying any sense of competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) Edit: double post. Edited March 17, 2014 by Charlie-Brown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 As I have said before kings blackmail threat with a boycott was always doomed to fail. He's a busted flush & it's a face saving exercise on his part now. He's limited by S.african tax law in how much he can take out the country too, but his idea was always to get the fans to pay for if. To date this man has invested zero in Trifc . I wondered about this. I knew scots around 15 years ago who had been in S Africa who weren't allowed to bring any savings out of the country. I wasn't sure if that still stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 You cannot by law cap individuals wages however you can cap a clubs overall playing staff budget as a ratio of their income which is an indirect cap on wage levels. We need far more stringent financial controls firstly to protect clubs from their own worst excesses but also as a way to prevent unrestricted money power destroying any sense of competition. So, to conclude: - You want Gate Sharing A salary cap (although you haven't said if it is a percentage of income or a flat ? amount Good luck with your pipe dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 So, to conclude: - You want Gate Sharing A salary cap (although you haven't said if it is a percentage of income or a flat ? amount Good luck with your pipe dream. It is a pipe dream Geoff as I have no doubt that no meaningful change will ever be possible until the present inadequate leaders of our game Lawwell, Petrie, Milne and the corrupt Ogilvie, Regan and Doncaster have all but destroyed the game in this country. Only once they have done their worst might people be receptive to more egalitarian ideals that were actually the norm in football for over a century. Increasing Fan Ownership might also help but I am not going to hold my breath. There are none so blind as those who cannot or will not see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 It is a pipe dream Geoff as I have no doubt that no meaningful change will ever be possible until the present inadequate leaders of our game Lawwell, Petrie, Milne and the corrupt Ogilvie, Regan and Doncaster have all but destroyed the game in this country. Only once they have done their worst might people be receptive to more egalitarian ideals that were actually the norm in football for over a century. Increasing Fan Ownership might also help but I am not going to hold my breath. There are none so blind as those who cannot or will not see. Much as I have no time for the present leadership of the game, you would probably need to get rid of around 35 boards in the SPFL to vote for your dream too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 (edited) So, to conclude: - You want Gate Sharing A salary cap (although you haven't said if it is a percentage of income or a flat ? amount Good luck with your pipe dream. Your (our) home and away once only is a pipe dream too. Nothing will change. Miind you Milne was on Sportsound tonight. We aren't progressive thinking enough and after Aberdeen's wee cup win he'll be working towards them playing outside Scotland. So OF to the EPL will still be on the never, never agenda detracting from trying to sort the game out. Edited March 17, 2014 by DETTY29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Your (our) home and away once only is a pipe dream too. Nothing will change. Miind you Milne was on Sportsound tonight. We aren't progressive thinking enough and after Aberdeen's wee cup win he'll be working towards them playing outside Scotland. So OF to the EPL will still be on the never, never agenda detracting from trying to sort the game out. Probably. On the grand scale of things it is more likely that that is achieved, in the sense that it is two lottery lines rather than one! As for Wiggy, I'm surprised you understood a word he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Between 1945-65, people had far fewer leisure options in the little free time they had. Gate sharing is a red herring and incentivises corruption through not declaring income. Surprised you'd say that as a fan of the NFL and the vast benefits that revenue sharing has brought. Gate sharing is peanuts in comparison, the bigger clubs would still have far higher prize money & merchandising opportunities. As for not declaring income, far more difficult to achieve in the days of all seater stadia. I really don't see it being an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Cool, so we have a franchise model. Why would this model improve Scottish football when no other European leagues pursue it? Its a massive change, someone has to go first. The Belgian league system is also pretty unique right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Much as I have no time for the present leadership of the game, you would probably need to get rid of around 35 boards in the SPFL to vote for your dream too. I know it's radical to suggest we should unwind the changes that have demonstrably damaged our game making it vastly less competitive than its ever been, no non Old Firm champions in 28 years is irrefutable. The previous methods lasted for over a century and we had more title winners and fewer financial club failures than we have had since Ogilvie, Murray and Souness changed our football landscape forever and set us on the path to widespread penuary, falling attendances and ironically the death of Old Rangers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 Surprised you'd say that as a fan of the NFL and the vast benefits that revenue sharing has brought. Gate sharing is peanuts in comparison, the bigger clubs would still have far higher prize money & merchandising opportunities. As for not declaring income, far more difficult to achieve in the days of all seater stadia. I really don't see it being an issue. There are key points of difference though:- - The NFL is played in one country. Football is played worldwide. Why would placing artificial restrictions on the game in Scotland uniquely improve the game in Scotland against all other leagues? - There is no promotion or relegation in the NFL and the lowest franchises are given advantages to close the gap. Should Scottish football go down a franchise route? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 I know it's radical to suggest we should unwind the changes that have demonstrably damaged our game making it vastly less competitive than its ever been, no non Old Firm champions in 28 years is irrefutable. The previous methods lasted for over a century and we had more title winners and fewer financial club failures than we have had since Ogilvie, Murray and Souness changed our football landscape forever and set us on the path to widespread penuary, falling attendances and ironically the death of Old Rangers. The David Murray model of killing the competition ironically unleashed a much more competitive Septic who were financially sustainable. There were no competitive issues for the bulk of the 1980s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 17, 2014 Share Posted March 17, 2014 The David Murray model of killing the competition ironically unleashed a much more competitive Septic who were financially sustainable. There were no competitive issues for the bulk of the 1980s. Not in the first half of the eighties as the changes had yet to take full effect but they are cumulative and compound in their nature. The Souness / Murray revolution changed everything. All of a sudden you had 40k+ attendances at Ibrox every other week and year on year they kept all that money themselves. We have had record high average attendances at Ibrox and Parkhead and diminishing crowds almost everywhere else ever since. We have allowed a massive wealth gap to be created and exacerbated with predictable end results. Reversing that will not 've easy nor quick. What is 100% certain US that no meaningful change will occur whilst the current mindset prevails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts151 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I actually did a rough calculation a while back with gates being split 50/50 and hearts wouldn't really be worse off. Or very little anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hearts151 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) Currently 14k average x 19 games = 266k ticket sales. Half that if 50/50 for home games is 133k ticket sales plus half of away games. Half of Celtic times two = 50k Newco 40k Hibs 15k Aberdeen 10k That's 115k so far. Meaning in the remaining 11 away games we'd need a total of 18k attending to break even. That's about 3.2k average attendance at each of those games. Therefore is actually possible in a league that contained newco that even hearts, the team with the third highest attendance, would be better off with a 50/50 gate share. Certainly every team below us would benefit. Wonder who would lose? Edited March 18, 2014 by hearts151 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Not in the first half of the eighties as the changes had yet to take full effect but they are cumulative and compound in their nature. The Souness / Murray revolution changed everything. All of a sudden you had 40k+ attendances at Ibrox every other week and year on year they kept all that money themselves. We have had record high average attendances at Ibrox and Parkhead and diminishing crowds almost everywhere else ever since. We have allowed a massive wealth gap to be created and exacerbated with predictable end results. Reversing that will not 've easy nor quick. What is 100% certain US that no meaningful change will occur whilst the current mindset prevails. The Murray piss money up the wall wasn't killing the competition at the start of the 90s though. Aberdeen lost a last day decider, we threw away a good position in 91/92 and they even struggled to get away from Motherwell in 93/94. TV money and Bosman need to be factored in here to your analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The Murray piss money up the wall wasn't killing the competition at the start of the 90s though. Aberdeen lost a last day decider, we threw away a good position in 91/92 and they even struggled to get away from Motherwell in 93/94. TV money and Bosman need to be factored in here to your analysis. Hibs have also competed up to about 20 games too. Once you get to about that number of games one or both the OF pull away from the rest. And significantly too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nookie Bear Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Hibs have also competed up to about 20 games too. Once you get to about that number of games one or both the OF pull away from the rest. And significantly too. Yep. Even in 2006, celtic finished 17 points clear of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The Murray piss money up the wall wasn't killing the competition at the start of the 90s though. Aberdeen lost a last day decider, we threw away a good position in 91/92 and they even struggled to get away from Motherwell in 93/94. TV money and Bosman need to be factored in here to your analysis. I've already stated that TV money, Sponsorship etc should be split far more evenly for both league and cup and that the rewards for each league and cup placing should not be as ridiculously skewed towards the top two as the have been in recent years, totally inequitable. As regards your previous point I believe their should be strict limits on the total wage bill and contract agreements clubs enter into and these should be as a percentage of the club's guaranteed income plus cash in the bank. Clubs shouldn't be allowed to sign players on the basis of them only being affordable on the basis of a predicted or hoped for higher league or cup placing as that is speculating to accumulate which provides the dual risk of a financial shortfall in the football placing isn't achieved also it allows teams to gain advantage over more prudent clubs. Clubs shouldn't be allowed to gamble on achieving success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 He's only allowed to take out R4 million. Circa ?233k I believe . Most of his cash is locked in S.Africa. he soes not want to take any cash out, he wants to use Rangers fans money to finance his own takeover. But as for the other point he did pump ?20m in to old Rangers, so he is allowed to take money out of the country, unless by doing so he got another row from SARS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 he soes not want to take any cash out, he wants to use Rangers fans money to finance his own takeover. But as for the other point he did pump ?20m in to old Rangers, so he is allowed to take money out of the country, unless by doing so he got another row from SARS I will wager Kings financial transactions are deliberately opaque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy-y Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 This gate sharing basically punnishes clubs for having a big support. How about if the home club agreed to give say 30% of the away fans gate recipts to the visiting club. Ie Hearts away to Livy. We take 3000 fans Livy would give us back money from 1000 fans. And the same when teams visit Hearts. It might give fans a wee incentive to go to away games knowing that some of what they pay goes back to their own club. I'm sure there are a lot of holes in this idea and I'd be pleased to hear opinions on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 This gate sharing basically punnishes clubs for having a big support. How about if the home club agreed to give say 30% of the away fans gate recipts to the visiting club. Ie Hearts away to Livy. We take 3000 fans Livy would give us back money from 1000 fans. And the same when teams visit Hearts. It might give fans a wee incentive to go to away games knowing that some of what they pay goes back to their own club. I'm sure there are a lot of holes in this idea and I'd be pleased to hear opinions on it. Similar has been suggested on other threads, maybe a new thread could be started to debate this further and to a wider audience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUTOL Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 (edited) I will wager Kings financial transactions are deliberately opaque. Are a lot of his assets not held in various trusts etc around the world. I think that was part of the reason his tax case took about thirteen years to come to court. Edited March 18, 2014 by SUTOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 This gate sharing basically punnishes clubs for having a big support. How about if the home club agreed to give say 30% of the away fans gate recipts to the visiting club. Ie Hearts away to Livy. We take 3000 fans Livy would give us back money from 1000 fans. And the same when teams visit Hearts. It might give fans a wee incentive to go to away games knowing that some of what they pay goes back to their own club. I'm sure there are a lot of holes in this idea and I'd be pleased to hear opinions on it. Has gate sharing been punishing bigger supported clubs in the Scottish Cup since the 1870's or League Cup since 1940's ? Did it punish clubs in Scottish League matches for the 90 years it existed from 1890 until 1981 ? Rangers and Celtic were still the dominant clubs and won most titles and trophies but others still managed to win the League from time to time. We are now into 28 straight seasons with no other club having won the title and 23 years since Aberdeen took it to the final day. No other clubs even look capable anymore and Hearts ultimately bankrupted themselves trying to compete with the massive wealth gap we have allowed to be created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseidon Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 The bigger teams will still make more money from corporate, merchandise, catering, sponsorship etc so they'll have more cash, just not as much. I'd be all for 50:50 shared receipts after expenses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feeno Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 I will wager Kings financial transactions are deliberately opaque. Im sure "off the radar wealth" takes on another meaning when dealing with King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff Kilpatrick Posted March 18, 2014 Share Posted March 18, 2014 Did the Wonga loan from Laxey get agreed then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarmerTweedy Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 This gate sharing basically punnishes clubs for having a big support. How about if the home club agreed to give say 30% of the away fans gate recipts to the visiting club. Ie Hearts away to Livy. We take 3000 fans Livy would give us back money from 1000 fans. And the same when teams visit Hearts. It might give fans a wee incentive to go to away games knowing that some of what they pay goes back to their own club. I'm sure there are a lot of holes in this idea and I'd be pleased to hear opinions on it. That idea would just make the bigger clubs even better off, as they have the biggest travelling supports. Let's say 2,000 celtic fans pay ?30 to go to a Ross County game in Dingwall, but only 100 Ross Co fans go to Darkheid at the same price. Do you really think it would help Scottish football to have Ross Co hand over ?18k to celtic but only get ?900 back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Union of fandans statement.. Hubris at its best. What are the 'binding, public commitments' that they've secured? Have i missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctor jambo Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 The board saying publicly they won't use m. Park or ibroke as security on a loan. What they don't realise is theirs already a security on M.Park & deloittes included a note on whytes claim on ibroke in the last accounts (contingent liability). The board couldn't use ibroke as a loan security if they wanted too because of this. I think they are forgetting that this is a COMPANY, which has a legal duty to shareholders, not its customers.You could not march into Odeon and demand part ownership of the building or you'd refuse to watch any more films there.Complete insanity, and King knows it.TRIFC are bound by laws beyond their control including the rules of AIM.And in terms of companies Rangers are very, very, small beer turnover wise.The only hope for the fans is to buy shares, and lots of themIf they want somehting to do with this "trust fund" they should use it to buy shares, (but their club would go bust)Though I reckon King has factored this in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Thor Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 The board saying publicly they won't use m. Park or ibroke as security on a loan. What they don't realise is theirs already a security on M.Park & deloittes included a note on whytes claim on ibroke in the last accounts (contingent liability). The board couldn't use ibroke as a loan security if they wanted too because of this. Ah right! A promise that we won't do what we've already done? You can fool some of the people some of the time................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skivingatwork Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 Apparently you can fool all of the The Rangers fans all of the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim1874 Posted March 19, 2014 Share Posted March 19, 2014 My proposals would be as follows; 1, increased league size, play each other home and away. Relegation play offs. 2, pooled tv and sponsorship money split equally with a smaller more equal differential in prize money for each place. 3, centralised match ticket sales, allocated 70% home team 30% away team, match costs also split same percentage. 4, stringent financial rules to prevent clubs overspending and taking on debt they cannot afford or speculating. 5, safe standing areas and lower ticket pricing across the board, incentive pricing on ticket sales. 6, squad size and salary capping as percentage of clubs guaranteed income to ensure club wage bills don't spiral out of control. 6, clear out the stables complete New governing body, sack the corrupt charlatans. Totally agree with this, unfortunately it will never happen... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts