Rangers Deathwatch Q&A


If my twitter feed is anything to go by, the quickening drumbeat surrounding Rangers FC (In Administration) is causing confusion in those who have only recently become aware of the immediacy of this crisis. So, I will try another Q&A to help clarify some of the most commonly asked questions and misapprehensions. (Apologies to our resident technical experts and old-timers for any simplifications).

What happened yesterday to cause all the fuss?
Rangers’ administrators released a statement saying that negotiations with players aimed at avoiding a mass-layoff had failed and that if a buyer did not step forward very soon (by Friday), drastic action would be necessary.

Does this mean Rangers will be liquidated on Friday (or Monday)?
No- not necessarily. Duff & Phelps did not clarify their intended course of action. Their options are a cull of the first team squad to bring about rapid cost cuts or they can cut-to-the-chase and just liquidate if they do not see any serious prospects of anyone buying the club in its current state. (Of course, if a buyer is waiting, a pre-pack is also possible. This would be a form of liquidation. The existing company would cease to exist).

What do you think is most likely- savage cost cuts or liquidation?
If I was the betting type, my money would be on savage cost cuts. It could be important for Duff & Phelps to be seen to have exhausted all options. However, we will see some arguments for immediate liquidation below.

Is liquidation inevitable?
Eventually, yes- it seems that way. The liabilities amassed by Rangers FC (In Administration) are probably more than the underlying business is worth- even without the Big Tax Case (BTC) liability. Include the likely amounts for underpayment & interest for the BTC, and Rangers’ total debts will probably be in the region of £70m. HMRC would then proceed with the penalty phase. This will add an additional £18m or thereabouts. No one planning on keeping Rangers alive can hope to spend less than £88m before a player is signed or a ball is kicked.
Keeping Rangers alive would also entail dealing with the responsibility for at least a decade of breaking league rules regarding player contracts and other illegal payments (such as those exposed in the Wee Tax Case). In short, Rangers today are an accumulation of time-bombs set years ago as expediencies designed to “win the title now” without regard to the future. They are all exploding together now. It would simply make financial sense to let the club founded by ‘four boys with a dream’ on Flesher’s Haugh in 1872 die and to start again.

Why have Duff & Phelps not cut costs more dramatically?
They say that they have been trying to preserve asset values by retaining as many sellable players as possible. This is quite possible and a case can be made that this is a reasonable approach. However, one of the primary roles of an administrator is to determine if a distressed business can be rescued or not. To go into liquidation without wielding a chainsaw to the cost structure would be strange. Most insolvency practitioners will want to demonstrate whether costs can be reduced below income. Given the unique legal powers of an administrator, if they cannot reduce costs below income, then no one can, and the business is beyond salvaging. Hence, I would be surprised if there is not at least a short period of Rangers operating with what amounts to a youth team playing for very little money. The administrators have other drastic tools available- such as cancelling season tickets and asking all fans to pay for entry to all future games. Given the stakes and emotions bound in this case, it would surprising if Duff & Phelps do not want to be seen to have tried everything.

Why have they mentioned not fulfilling all fixtures this season?
If they are going to skip the cost cutting and proceed straight to liquidation, failing to show up becomes inevitable. I understand (but have not yet verified) that the process for a team that does not fulfill all of its fixtures is that all of its results are voided and it finishes the season on zero points. (or -10 points in Rangers’ case due to the penalty for insolvency). This would relegate Rangers from the SPL. The number of clubs who would likely object to a newco being dropped into the SPL could then start to rise. The chances of the SPL getting bogged down in court proceedings start to increase dramatically. Thus far, the SFA and the SPL have failed miserably to provide leadership in this process. Only recently stirred from their slumbers, they do not appear to have thought any of these processes through. It is vital that these organisations start thinking and listening to expert advice. They must figure out all of the pathways and pitfalls now.

Why would they go straight to liquidation?
If the liabilities accrued to Rangers- debt to Craig Whyte’s Wavetower, tickets owed to Ticketus, assorted unpaid tax bills over the last year, and so on are such that even if Rangers won the Big Tax Case (and HMRC did not appeal), that the club would still be unable to dig itself out, then liquidation would be inevitable. Cost cutting would only buy some time, but would not affect the final outcome. On top of these bills, the costs of litigating all of the legal messes created would also be significant. It is unlikely that any of our dashing heroes waiting in the morgue to collect the corpse would want to take on such a disaster.

If liquidation is inevitable, why is Paul Murray saying otherwise?
As Graham Spiers accurately recalled on TV last night, this is the same Paul Murray who said that it made no sense for anyone to buy Rangers with the Big Tax Case hanging over the club. Yet, today he is posturing on the periphery trying to look like a hero set to save the day? Nothing about Rangers’ position has improved since then. I will call it as I see it: Paul Murray is fronting a consortium of ex-directors who want to claim the corpse of the club killed by their own actions. They are hoping to make life for Craig Whyte so uncomfortable post-liquidation that he will surrender his claim on Rangers’ assets cheaply. Paul Murray is neither so naive nor so stupid as to believe that he can really save the club. He does appear to be so cynical as to toy with the hopes and emotions of the Rangers’ many supporters.

Can Rangers stay in the SPL if liquidated?
Contrary to some of the word-play coming from Duff & Phelps and Neil Doncaster of the SPL, if Rangers FC is liquidated- that is the end of the road. There are no provisions in current SPL rules to allow a club to stay in the SPL if it has been liquidated. There are no provisions to  allow a newco to automatically enter the Scottish Football League Division 3 either. This point was distorted by Neil Doncaster (abetted by arch St. Mirren supporter- Chick Young) as he tried to imply that re-entry to the SPL was the only path forward for a newco-Rangers. Mr. Doncaster should wait to hear the results of the inquiry he has ordered into the two-contracts scandal before he forms a set view. If a newco-Rangers is allowed free entry to the SPL- with no annual financial or points penalty as an “entrance fee”- the integrity of football in Scotland will have been torn to shreds. Free entry would do more to damage the game in Scotland than any loss of revenue from Rangers’ disappearance could ever do. If the SPL rules are modified in advance of a vote to make it easier to allow newco-Rangers free entry, then the damage will be ever greater. Likewise, a change in regulations would be necessary to allow the newco-Rangers to inherit the football honours (those won fairly and those that carry the taint of financial doping and illegal tax scams). This could prove to be the last straw for many football fans. Why bother playing the games? If one particular club is not allowed to face the consequences of its own reckless mismanagement, then the Scottish Premier League will not be worth watching at all.
To be clear, I expect the SPL and SFA to attempt to change whatever rules are necessary to make life easy for newco-Rangers.

When will the Big Tax Case result be released?
There is no set schedule. It could be days. It could be months. My guess is that we will not have to wait too much longer as the judges will have had the opportunity to write-up much of their findings of fact long before the final sitting of the tribunal.

What will happen to the Big Tax Case if Rangers are liquidated before the result?
HMRC would request that the result is still entered. Contrary to sports journalist speculation, a First Tier Tribunal (Tax) finding cannot be used to set precedent for other cases. (It would have to be heard at the Upper Tribunal or a higher court to be binding on other cases being heard in First Tier Tribunals). With no legal entity left to appeal to an upper chamber, Rangers’ case could not set precedent for anyone else. Rangers’ result could be referred to in other cases, but there are many unique aspects of Rangers’ case that will not be relevant to anyone else.

In summary, the cascading effects of a Rangers liquidation pose a serious threat to the existence of professional football in Scotland. These problems cannot be resolved by simply wishing Rangers’ illegality and irresponsibility away and allowing them to proceed as if nothing has happened. There are a series of needles that need to be threaded together. This will require intensive effort to balance justice and fair-play with the economic interests of all clubs in the short and long term. I have seen nothing yet that would indicate that the leadership required to bring this disaster to a satisfactory conclusion is in place. However, I would love to write a blog in a few months withdrawing this charge and heaping praise on Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan for a difficult job well done. I do not envy their task.

Edit:

Some have asked for a breakdown of the debt calculation. I posted this as a blog reply but before it disappears off the page, I thought that I would post it here too:

To explain the breakdown of the debt estimate:

£18m – Wavetower (plus interest at rates Whyte can set- £26m at least by now- but let’s stick with £18m).
£12m – taxes (could be £15m per BBC Scotland)
£6m – misc. working capital owed by RFC at time of takeover (not including any increase due to Whyte just not paying bills)

That would be £36m debt before we consider the Big Tax Case. (It will be significantly more, but let’s not get hung up on precision).

Big Tax Case:
£20-24m in underpayment
£16-20m in interest (compounding daily- it has grown by about £2m in the time this blog has been running. Initial estimates assumed monthly compounding. This would have been low).
i.e. initial total of £38-44m

Penalty: assumed £18m.

That actually puts the debt at between £92-98m. My apologies for the low estimate above in the interests of conservatism.

Of course, HMRC will actually just say “ach forget the £68-74m you owe us. We want you to live. It was all a big misunderstanding. We will accept nothing. You pay everyone else, including Craig Whyte, and we will be happy to walk away”

About rangerstaxcase
I have information on Rangers' tax case, and I will use this blog to provide the details of what Rangers FC have done, why it was illegal, and what the implications for what was (updated) one of the largest football clubs in Britain.

1,150 Responses to Rangers Deathwatch Q&A

  1. Galling fiver says:

    I get it. I totally agree with the provincial teams then.

  2. tigertim says:

    Whens the press conference? These guys are ruthless eh! Come on D & D

  3. Mark Dickson says:

    PG says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:08 pm

    Celtic’s stadium capacity is less now than the record attendance for games at Celtic park. When Celtic’s record attendance was set they shared the 80K+ attendance money with the away team.
    In any system of sharing their will be net contributors and net recipients – if their wasn’t then it wouldn’t be sharing would it – everybodies money would simply stay in their own pockets. We’ve seen how successful that has been and how it has improved Scottish football?

  4. Hugh McEwan says:

    Does anyone know what the position is with regard gate sharing in the other leagues.

    Is it common pracice, or doe sit tend to be that the home club keeps the income.

  5. layman00 says:

    The SPL was created to shaft all the rest of Scottish Football and the teams outside the old firm signed up to it because they wanted the cash that previously distributed throughout all the leagues.

    The problem with finances is caused by the greed by players and agents. Even with shared incomes etc this problem will still exist. This whole idea of some socialist set up will not work because of the money players demand. Talented youth leave the SPL because they can earn shit loads in the english championship how are clubs in Scotland going to stop that?

  6. Jean says:

    You couldn’t make it up!

    Chris McLaughlin ‏ @BBCchrismclaug
    Some #Rangers players have a clause in their new deals which allows them to walk away for free if Craig Whyte regains control of club!

  7. Parson St. Bhoy says:

    On KDS according to Jabba in the DR Ticketus have got into bed with Paul Murray and The Shite Knights

  8. scapa says:

    Chris McLaughlin‏@BBCchrismclaug

    Open

    Some #Rangers players have a clause in their new deals which allows them to walk away for free if Craig Whyte regains control of club!

  9. scapa says:

    scapa says:

    09/03/2012 at 4:07 pm

    From the daily record

    TICKETUS have emerged as shock backers of Paul Murray’s Blue Knights consortium who are trying to buy Rangers.

    The news will stun fans after chairman Craig Whyte admitted selling future Ibrox season tickets to the London-based company and using the cash to buy the club last May.

    Administrators Duff and Phelps are determined to clinch a deal for the club soon and insist there are a number of parties interested in a purchase.

    Murray and his Blue Knights are among those high in the running but news that Ticketus are also part of the group will amaze the Rangers support.

    Whyte stated that Ticketus paid £20million in return for ticket revenues for the next three seasons in a confession which enraged a fanbase who had been previously been unaware of the dealing.

    However, with the club falling into administration last month, Duff and Phelps are seeking buyers for the stricken club and Murray’s Blue Knights are understood to include Ticketus.

  10. Oor Wullie says:

    Just seen former Rangers boss Alex McLeish on Sky Sports News.

    He looked grim and claimed that he knew ‘some people’ who would not let Rangers die.

    He said he wasn’t going to name anyone in particular.

    The look on his face reminded me of the look on Allister Johnston’s face in the Whyte documentary on the BBC.

    Deadly serious and very no surrenderish.

  11. Paul Mac says:

    scapa says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:07 pm

    From the daily record

    TICKETUS have emerged as shock backers of Paul Murray’s Blue Knights consortium who are trying to buy Rangers.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    That does not make financial sense unless it is a NEWCO…..and a NEWCO only in the SPL..

    An investment company willing to take on £80-£90m debts…I think not

    How much would the investment Company want in return for taking on those debts?

    AND SERIOUSLY IS THAT THE CONSORTIUM?

    Does it pass the fit and proper test..who do they have in mind as directors?

    Mr. Paul Murray is fast becoming a stand up joke..

  12. Jean says:

    BBC Sportsound ‏ @bbcsportsound
    Gers make partial Caley payment: Caley Thistle chairman Kenny Cameron confirms Rangers have paid £25,000 of the … http://bbc.in/zqmQ86

  13. Night Terror says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    09/03/2012 at 3:28 pm

    After everything Rangers have done the other SPL clubs voting them back in would be insanity and against all reason & fairness. It would be rewarding wrongdoing and inflicitng further self harm on Scottish football. Too big to fail or punish would simply create conditions were the same or similar abuse of trust could happen again.

    I agree fully with that, but would add that it would be a much bigger mistake to think that to balance out the insanity and self harm of admitting Newco Rangers could be balanced out by hitting the Newco with years of points or financial penalties.

    To do that would make two moral and sporting integrity errors rather than one, while damaging the financial benefit of having “Rangers” straight back in the league.

    – The reaction unjust penalties on the New Company would provoke in the Rangers support would compromise their financial contribution to the SPL while stoking a sense of moral outrage
    – The disillusion and outrage in fans of the other 11 clubs caused by admitting NewRangers straight into the SPL they helped corrupt would also compromise the SPL’s finances.

    Admitting an “under penalty” Newco Rangers to the SPL would be a financial, moral and civic disaster.

  14. Night Terror says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:15 pm

    I do not have any problem with a sensible proposal around distribution of television, sponsorship and prize money being discussed and voted on by ALL SPL clubs.

    I have a problem with a entirely new football club, spawned from a club that has cheated all of Scottish football for many years being voted straight back in to the SPL, while their creditors are left high and dry. That is my problem.

    Now, a quote from one of the chairmen of the 10 said they have a chance to end the Old Firm domination of the Scottish game. I hate the phrase old firm, but accept what it means to others – old firm domination of our game has ceased, half of the old firm will cease to exist in a few weeks. So why meet about stopping something that no longer exists? Like I said previously, IF those clubs vote in a new club it is the end of any integrity of the Scottish game. I can only speak for myself, I will not be back.

    bjmac

  15. Parson St. Bhoy says:

    With acknowledgement to thorntontic on KDS

    9 Mar 2012, 04:15 PM
    Chris McLaughlin ‏ @BBCchrismclaug Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
    Some #Rangers players have a clause in their new deals which allows them to walk away for free if Craig Whyte regains control of club!
    That sounds utter nonsense.

    The administrators have drafted contracts with assets of the club that their value will be nil if the club comes out if administration with Craig Whyte in control. So they have unilaterally reduced his holding in the club.

    I see another court case…..

    Whoever said this could save the legal profession in Scotland wasn’t wrong

  16. Jean says:

    Is there still a big story coming from CQN? of was the 10 club thing it?

  17. Paul Mac says:

    SSN 4 players have taken a 75% wage cut……ahem…it is a deferral..they have agreed to having that 75% repaid to them once they exit administration?

    And the 4 players…

    McGregor
    Whittaker
    Naismith
    Davis

    That amounts to approx…£240k a month…only another £720k or so to find..having already removed Celik and Wylde..

  18. Night Terror says:

    Mark Dickson says:
    09/03/2012 at 3:28 pm

    After everything Rangers have done the other SPL clubs voting them back in would be insanity and against all reason & fairness. It would be rewarding wrongdoing and inflicitng further self harm on Scottish football. Too big to fail or punish would simply create conditions were the same or similar abuse of trust could happen again.

    I agree fully with that, but would add that it would be a much bigger mistake to think that the insanity and self harm of admitting Newco Rangers could be balanced out by hitting the Newco with years of points or financial penalties.

    To do that would make two moral and sporting integrity errors rather than one, while damaging the financial benefit of having “Rangers” straight back in the league.

    – The reaction unjust penalties on the New Company would provoke in the Rangers support would compromise their financial contribution to the SPL while stoking a sense of moral outrage
    – The disillusion and outrage in fans of the other 11 clubs caused by admitting NewRangers straight into the SPL they helped corrupt would also compromise the SPL’s finances.

    Admitting an “under penalty” Newco Rangers to the SPL would be a financial, moral and civic disaster.

  19. Night Terror says:

    BJMAC67 (@bjmac67) says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:29 pm

    I do not have any problem with a sensible proposal around distribution of television, sponsorship and prize money being discussed and voted on by ALL SPL clubs.

    I have a problem with a entirely new football club, spawned from a club that has cheated all of Scottish football for many years being voted straight back in to the SPL, while their creditors are left high and dry. That is my problem.

    Agreed. Heartily.

  20. Tangerine Taysider says:

    Night Terror says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:28 pm

    Spot on. Lets punish a total failure of sporting integrity by a penalty system, which is well arbitrary and lacking in sporting integrity.

    It would actually be better to exact a financial penalty, e,g, for next 5 years Newco contribute a % of turnover to a fund then to be allocated say pro-rata to a revised tv contract to help develop competition, recognising that what they did before was about destroying competition. I’m not proposing this, merely saying it would at least have the logic of in some way addressing what they have done.

  21. Huge lavvy says:

    How can it be a deferral that makes the player a creditor surely that cannot be fair on other creditors
    Something stinks to high heaven here

  22. Night Terror says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:28 pm

    Entirely agree with that view. You can’t punish a new club for old misdemeanours, however neither can you reward a new club with the benefits of an old club leaving behind a financial train crash.

    bjmac

  23. Paul Mac says:

    scapa says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:20 pm
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    Chris McLaughlin‏@BBCchrismclaug

    Open

    Some #Rangers players have a clause in their new deals which allows them to walk away for free if Craig Whyte regains control of club!

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    As the man who owns 85% of the shares…he is in pole position…unless someone is willing to give him £10m for them…as well as take on the £80-£90m debt..

  24. scapa says:

    Jean says:

    09/03/2012 at 4:29 pm

    Very good, needed a good giggle, now get to the naughty step!

  25. scapa says:

    James Cook‏@BBCJamesCookReply
    Retweet

    Favorite
    · Open

    RT @BBCDouglsFraser: Ticketus isn’t ruling out its own bid for #Rangers

  26. Galling fiver says:

    Can anyone point me in the direction of articles regarding co-opting of governing bodies etc. I’m assuming that in the event that a governing body being found unfit for purpose they can be replaced.

  27. jocky bhoy says:

    Thanks to TrimTab for those average attendance numbers. Based on this year to date the average attandances of those teams (excl Dundee they are all still in the SPL), the average attendance is UP 45% and that rise is all Celtic & Rangers – Celtic are up 172% and Rangers are up 110%. Big fallers? The “New Firm” were in their pomp back then and have suffered accordingly, as have St Johnston(?) – Hearts and Hibs are both up a reasonable amount, the other teams much of a muchness.

    (disclaimer – this table may not work)

    THEN NOW
    Rangers FC 21,996 46,242 110%
    Celtic FC 18,390 50,067 172%
    Aberdeen FC 17,138 9,551 -44%
    Hearts 11,914 13,423 13%
    Dundee Utd 10,894 7,330 -33%
    Hibs 8,334 9,856 18%
    Motherwell FC 5,566 5,594 1%
    St. Mirren FC 4,900 4,769 -3%
    St. Johnstone FC 4,859 3,934 -19%
    103,991 150,766 45%

    So what? Well Rangers have managed to implode financially despite double the attendance and more revenue than they would ever have dreamed of back in the day, conversely, Hibs have lurched from one problem (and manager) to another of late, starved of success, yet have increased their average attendance by 18%.

  28. Parson St. Bhoy says:

    I’m away to see if my jelly has set. This is starting to become something like a cross between Heller’s Catch 22, Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, Flann O’Brian’s Third Policeman with a dash of Monty Python and a soupçon of Fawlty Towers.

  29. Andy says:

    Paul Mac says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:30 pm
    1 0 Rate This
    SSN 4 players have taken a 75% wage cut……ahem…it is a deferral..they have agreed to having that 75% repaid to them once they exit administration?
    ________________________

    its not a deferral they dont want the wages back but they want back on the same contract or they can go if they come out of admin

  30. Paul Mac says:

    Huge lavvy says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:36 pm

    How can it be a deferral that makes the player a creditor surely that cannot be fair on other creditors
    Something stinks to high heaven here..

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I agree…a deferral now makes them a creditor..

    The whole shabang is now starting to smell like a bucket of prawns in the midday sun…

    The administrators are questionable at best..

  31. paperbhoy says:

    Anyone know of any truth in the twitter comment from @fritzagrandold that “3 years accounts required by SFA to become member. Need to be member to join SFL or SPL.”

  32. Paul Mac says:

    Andy says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:43 pm
    0 0 i Rate This

    Paul Mac says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:30 pm
    1 0 Rate This
    SSN 4 players have taken a 75% wage cut……ahem…it is a deferral..they have agreed to having that 75% repaid to them once they exit administration?
    ________________________

    its not a deferral they dont want the wages back but they want back on the same contract or they can go if they come out of admin

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  33. Mark Dickson says:

    Some really strange things going on at Ibrox – pay deferrals that disadvantage the majority shareholder and ‘secured’ creditor ………….. Ticketus now promoting the Blue Knights bid even though the ticketus deal is allegedly unravelling?

  34. Sauzee says:

    Anyone else finding it hilarious that Celtic fans – with their Che Guevara banners and fashionable right-on Socialist sensibilities – squealing at the prospect of wealth redistribution ?

  35. v says:

    Don’t know about the accounts but being a member of the spl automatically grants membership of sfa

  36. Paul Mac says:

    Andy says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:43 pm

    Paul Mac says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:30 pm

    SSN 4 players have taken a 75% wage cut……ahem…it is a deferral..they have agreed to having that 75% repaid to them once they exit administration?
    ________________________

    its not a deferral they dont want the wages back but they want back on the same contract or they can go if they come out of admin

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Thats not what SSN just announced…they stated quite clearly the players have taken a 75% wage cut that they will look to have repaid to them if rangers exit administration…that is a dererral..

    Clearly it would help if Duff and Duffer could provide an official statement

  37. Oor Wullie says:

    scapa says:
    09/03/2012 at 11:01 am

    CQN hinting at interesting story on there later today, just when I thought I might get some work done lol
    =========================================================

    Could you post a link if and when.

    Cheers.

    After all the negative stories in this mornings newspapers here a wee gem of a positive story from yesterday.

    http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8190

  38. Andy says:

    Paul Mac says:

    thanks
    i never seen sky i was going on what was said earlier

  39. k3lly says:

    Sauzee says:

    Ahem, I think you’ll find that’s “appropriation” we object to. If your club wants more money, your club needs to get it’s fans to ‘step up and pay’.

  40. Parson St. Bhoy says:

    As the great William of Ockham may have put it, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. The lunatics really have taken over the asylum and those that God wishes to destroy He first makes mad.

  41. Calderon says:

    Ticketus like Rangers so much they want to buy them for the second time in ten months.

  42. Mark Dickson says:

    jocky bhoy says:
    09/03/2012 at 4:41 pm

    Jocky,

    Celtic’s average attendances now eclipse by quite some distance anything like they got during the Stein 9-in-a-row era Why?

    Is the football better to watch?
    Is the team more successful?
    Are the competitors better?
    Are Celtic more of a force in Europe?
    Is it better value for money?
    Is it less expensive (in relative terms)?

    The answer to each of these questions is clearly no and you can ask and get similar answers at Ibrox ……………………the current era’s greatest anomoly is that Celtic & Rangers now get crowds averages far in excess of anything they got during their glory years yet everywhere else in Scotland has crowds down below their historical averages not only their highest averages.

    Severe Lack of competition is the reason for that imo.

  43. scapa says:

    D & P statement later today

  44. Spanishcelt says:

    Four players on average 25k each a week = 400k a month @ 75% reduction is savings of 300k a month ( maximum) still 700.000 a month to find for their 1Million a month savings required.
    Or am I missing something?

  45. Stargazor says:

    A simple solution for ending this debacle is for Dermot Desmond to get together with some of his mates, form a consortium and buy RFC (IA).
    His Consortium could easily come up with £100 mill.

    First he waits for ‘Makit and Brakit’ to do all the dirty work of cancelling the Ticketus deal and
    the courts to wrestle Ipox & MP back under the control of RFC (IA).

    Consortium then purchases all control of RFC (IA), pays HMRC and all creditors there monies.
    Then offers to sell RFC for £150 – £200 mill.
    If the Scottish media, Rangers support are so sure Scottish Football will collapse without Rangers crims, they will do the honourable thing and buy back Rangers.
    Large % of the £50 – £100 mill profit goes to benefit Celtic.

    If nobody wants to buy Rangers then DD consortium sells off all assets and charges £100 quid a go at swinging the wrecking ball.

    Simples

  46. It Was Never Worth a Pound says:

    From the BBC

    We’re going to hear from Ranger’s former director of football Gordon Smith…

  47. easyJambo says:

    jocky bhoy says: 09/03/2012 at 4:41 pm

    Therein lies the conundrum. Despite only two teams having a chance of winning the league, increased live TV, early kick offs, Friday, Sunday and Monday matches, each “diddy” team still has a core support that continues to attend games in decent numbers. If there is no RFC, will those people suddenly disappear.

    If Celtic fans get bored by regular success, or seek pastures new, then so be it. The majority of fans of the “diddy” teams would be glad to see them go.

    In the short life of the SPL, (this is the 14th season) 18 teams have participated. Take away the big two and seven different sides out the sixteen would have won the league. (Hearts, Hibs, Aberdeen, Motherwell, Dundee Utd, St Johnstone and Livingston).

    Now that would be a competitive league, with most teams going into the season, thinking this could be our year. There would be no 20-30 point gap in 1st to 2nd, or 2nd to 3rd. That is the sort of league to which we should aspire and one that would attract more paying customers.

  48. paperbhoy says:

    Trevor Steven was just interviewed on SSN, yet the journo failed to ask him if he had a side-contract during his time as a player there. Why have all journos turned mute on the issue of side-contracts?

  49. k3lly says:

    Mark Dickson says:

    That’s crap. Did you watch the last Celtic v Aberdeen game? Did it look to you like there was no competition?

    Is the football better to watch?
    > Depends on your age surely – it’s much better now than under Mowbray for example.

    Is the team more successful?
    > No – but success isn’t measured only in Titles and Cups. Football is entertainment; the question is – were you entertained watching that game? Yes.

    Are the competitors better?
    > See Celtic v Aberdeen match as above. And compare relative spend over past five years. The ‘Dons did fantastic, and fair play to them for that.

    Are Celtic more of a force in Europe?
    > No, but irrelevant.

    Is it better value for money?
    > Depends on your age surely – it’s much better now than under Mowbray for example.

    Is it less expensive?
    > No – is anything else?

    Why do so many turn up at Parkhead, to watch a team that hasn’t won much for years? Solve that equation, and your team won’t need to take another team’s money off them ‘for the good of Scottish football’.

    Here’s a hint: football is supposed to be entertainment.

%d bloggers like this: