The Last Drink In The Last Chance Saloon


It is roughly seventeen months since this project started. Despite all of the revelations from this blog, and from other ‘new media’ outlets, little has changed in the world of Scottish football. This might seem a strange claim given that the largest football club in the country has become insolvent and now sits on corporate death-row awaiting its execution. However, the major institutions that feed on the blood of Scottish football fans: the SFA; the SPL; and the newspapers- appear to have learned little from events in this time.

They still believe that the people who pay their wages are imbeciles. They still dish out fatuous lies and peddle disinformation as if Sir David Murray was still in his heyday. The hysterical exaggerations and tales of impending financial doom should be transparent to the businessmen who fill most of the Chairman roles at Scottish football clubs. Anyone with even a few minutes of business experience will see through the lies of the Scottish football establishment. These scare stories are not the issue. It is the dangling of long requested changes in the structure of the Scottish game that will present clubs from both the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football League with a dilemma.

From their public statements, it is clear that the driving forces behind this attempt at league-rigging are SFA Chief Executive Stewart Regan and SPL Chief Executive Neil Doncaster. Despite being paid to promote the Scottish game, they have spent recent weeks trying to convince advertisers and TV companies that their product is worthless without someone representing Rangers’ legacy playing in the SFL1 next season. It is as if Sevco Ltd was a panacea and that this new club will be guaranteed promotion to the SPL within a single season.

Let us be in no doubt. Scottish football faces a period of turmoil and some financial belt-tightening regardless of what happens in any of the upcoming votes. (If Servco Ltd are forced to start in SFL3, the nattering nabobs of the mainstream Scottish sports press will doubtless blame every player transfer and setback on ‘internet bampots’ and shortsighted fans of so-called ‘diddy teams’). The Scottish game became unsustainable and unhealthily unbalanced towards just two clubs. In an era when it is easy to watch the best football from every country all week long, we need to extract the cancers that have been devouring our game for over twenty years rather than battling to preserve them. Among the assorted symptoms of the illness facing our game are:

  • Scottish football has failed to develop a single stand-out talent since the early 1980s
  • Scottish football has been spending more than it takes in for far too long
  • Scottish football has fallen far behind global standards in the quality of entertainment it offers

Scottish football had become dull and uninteresting for all but the fans of the two clubs that could entertain thoughts of ever winning the league.

There is a now a golden opportunity for creative minds to remake the game. Instead, we have intellectual pygmies telling us that everything in Scottish football is fantastic and must be saved at all costs. What is worth saving? Declining attendances? A terrible set of TV contracts that do not realise the full value of the Scottish game? A national team that cannot qualify for any international competitions? We have a game that is viewed with universal contempt for both its lack of technical quality and the lopsidedness of its top division. This is where our game finds itself almost three decades after the “Souness Revolution” started at Rangers. The false economies started by David Holmes, and placed on steroids by David Murray, eventually devastated all around it. Rangers embodied the ideas that financial might made right and reckless spending was the key to success. Their demise should be a cautionary tale to others to get their house in order. Instead, the Scottish football establishment wants to send the signal that if you are going to fail, make sure you do it on a spectacular scale: we will make everyone else carry you if it goes wrong.

Mr. Doncaster trained as a lawyer and has an MBA. If Scottish football was a case study at a business school, anyone submitting a paper that recommended crushing the last remnants of fairness in the game to prop up a failed old-order would not get a passing mark. Doncaster in particular is failing. (Funny that Messers Doncaster & Regan find it so easy to predict the effects of Sevco Ltd playing in SFL3, but could not use these same skills to anticipate Rangers’ implosion. Even when the aforementioned ‘internet bampots’ had warned years earlier of a crisis brewing at Ibrox, the men with the crystal ball today were unable to see something that was so obvious). When the dust settles on this disaster one way or another, one can only hope that Doncaster and Regan have absented themselves. It is clear that they lack the imaginations required to improve our game. Our hopes for restoring the thrill of Scottish football now rests on the men who run the clubs in the SPL and the SFL. We must hope that they have the backbone to stand-up to being bullied and the foresight to realise that all that is being dangled by Regan & Doncaster can be obtained anyway- without sacrificing the game and without the hired hands for whom this all appears to be just a job.

If fairness fails and Sevco Ltd is able to field a team in the SFL1 next season, it is for each fan to make an individual decision on whether it is worth returning to watch a game played with loaded dice. For those who do decide to go back (I am still undecided), something will still be missing in the game. An unfillable void will have opened. The men who will vote on this decision have to realise that they are not just voting on short-term revenues. They are going to irreparably alter the Scottish game whatever happens. Money will ebb and flow in football in proportion to the excitement and quality of the competition. If fans believe that there is no competition because a winner is preordained, money will leave and it will stay gone.

______________________________________________________

Poll:

Trying something new. Bear with me if this turns out to be a bridge too far for my technical skills.

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.

7,916 Responses to The Last Drink In The Last Chance Saloon

  1. joe mccormack says:

    mmmmm……very strange.

    I’ve tried several times to post about a Scottish journo, not named by the way and my posts have just gone into the ether.Nothing too strong, just making what I thought were valid points that many on the blog would recognise………………………….surely RTC can’t be him,Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  2. reilly1926 says:

    In the same way that no accountant would sign off RFC (IA) accounts post Minty I really can’t see Regan taking any risks in giving Sevco a licence.

    Can you imagine if, as has been done in the past, the licence was given with a nod and a wink only for Servco to sink into the financial quick sand, that they are undoubtedly built upon, before the end of the season. There would be hell to pay.

    Regan will not take any chances in his fight for survival. In fact he may even gain public kudos if he refuses, quite rightly, to issue the licence.

    If Mr Charles has been hiding anything then I suspect it’s going to be exposed in the next few days.

    Anyone else starting to have a bit of sympathy for Green ? (No – me neither) Shirley he couldn’t in his worst nightmare have imagined what he was buying into. Everything that could go wrong has gone wrong even the win at the Court of Session. Like Bill Miller before him I reckon that between them Duff & Phelps, Regan and Doncaster have been a bit over optimistic in their discussions with him on how this would pan out.

  3. Althetim says:

    Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
    17/07/2012 at 2:13 pm

    ++++++++++++++

    Excellent post. My sentiments exactly.

  4. Edgar Blamm says:

    Hugh Keevins.

  5. Edgar Blamm says:

    Phew! Thank God.

  6. Scapa says:

    reilly1926 says:

    17/07/2012 at 2:39 pm

    Cause of action under sale of goods act? Green knows if he keeps his nerve, there is money to be made here, it just might not involve a white round thing being kicked

  7. HirsutePursuit says:

    I’m utterly confused.

    While I agree it is technically possible for the SFA board to sanction the transfer of Rangers FC PLC membership, it is absolutely prohibited to transfer their Club Licence.

    It is the Club Licence conditions that have stipulations about historical financial records. Those financial records are pertaining to the club as a corporate entity. Unless Sevco Scotland are taking full ownership of Rangers FC PLC(IA) how can they be granted a Club Licence on the basis of another company’s accounts?

    Whether Sevco are granted a shiny new SFA membership or have Rangers FC’s crusty old membership transferred, seems to me to be irrelevent to the fact that they don’t have the ability to meet the criteria for Club Licencing.

    If the SFA are prepared to grant Sevco a Club Licence in circumstances where Sevco cannot actually meet the specified criteria, then I believe that is also technically within their power. But this has nothing to do with whether or not they should sanction the transfer of Rangers FC’s membership.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I believe the SFA would be contorting Article 14 (in the extreme) if they granted Sevco the membership currently registered to Rangers FC PLC.

    Article 14, for those who are not aware, is headed:
    “PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP”

    The SFA Articles make no distinction between a “club” and the corporate entity. In fact there are specific references in their articles to a “club” suffering an insolvency event. It’s definition of an insolvency event includes a phrase about the “liquidation of a member”. The idea that a “club” is considered, in this particular case,not to be the corporate entity that is just about to be liquidated, is perverse and not in keeping with their own Articles.

    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=10204&newsCategoryID=1

    How can Rangers be considered for membership when they can’t provide four years’ financial statements?

    Sevco Scotland Ltd bought Rangers Football Club PLC’s share in the SPL and membership of the Scottish FA as part of their acquisition of assets. Under Article 14.1, Sevco Scotland are requesting the transfer of the existing membership of Oldco. This is different to an application for a new membership, which generally requires four years of financial statements.

    Is just b0ll0cks!!!

  8. joe mccormack says:

    Reilly 1926

    Heard Green in his SSN interviews encouraging the senior players that are left to find other clubs.

  9. joe mccormack says:

    Reilly 1926

    Posted earlier re today’s Leggat blog. He’s insistent that Green will not name who is behind Blue Pitch Holdings because there is a convicted money launderer involved.

  10. lurchingfrompillartopost says:

    I wonder if Ticketus, being a vehicle for Octopus, being a self proclaimed EIS investment company is happy with HMRC EIS trading activity dos and don’ts http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/eis/part2/2-4.htm?

    Seems like a slap in the face if all that tax money that’s been lost by RFC going down is going to be further added to and denied to the public purse by any possible future income payable to Ticketus (£20 odd million?) which cheekily is taking advantage of a tax avoidance scheme – yet more money that could be used by the public purse being taken out of Sevco/RFC newclub (or sale of assets) to reward tax avoiding investors.

    Maybe HMRC is considering how happy it is with EIS vehicle being used in this way as both RFC and Ticketus are preventing tax being raised for Hector.

  11. Scapa says:

    joe mccormack says:

    17/07/2012 at 2:47 pm

    But Giovanni is away to the DA?

  12. Andy says:

    i would rather they let the 4 years accounts slip and let them apply for a new membership of the sfa rather than going through the sham of transferring the rangers registration to sevco

    it would put to bed once and for all the history continuation nonsense from the peepil

  13. Auldheid says:

    HirsutePursuit says:

    17/07/2012 at 2:43 pm

    We are on the same page. I posted last night that SFA Membership and a Club Licence were two different things and the term is not interchangeable. I’ll repost to save those interested from scrolling back. The matter is extremely important because

    a) addressing the failings in club licensing in terms of primacy and rigor and
    b) the two stools gap between it and SFA Membership would have

    a) stopped Rangers going the road they went in 2007/08

    b) stopped Regan and Doncaster trying to prevent what has happened since Feb happening anyway without current complications..

    The term silk purse from a sow’s ear comes to mind. They might just have been trying to save Rangers but in doing so were trying to perpetuate a massively faild system that would only fail again had they succeeeded.

    Earlier Post.

    I posted this on KDS in response to the terms Membership and licence being used as if they were synonymous/interchangeable in terms of what the SFA want to do next to grant Sevco SFA Membership..

    I hate to be pedantic but it is the Membership that they wish to transfer. CLUB Licences (the clue is in the name) are not transferrable.

    The criteria for Membership is promulgated by the SFA from time to time (that is the nearest I could come to finding criteria in SFA Articles). A Club Licence for the SFL is issued under the various criteria set out in National Club Licensing rules.

    For the SPL clubs, the SFA use the same criteria and process to grant a licence as is set out in UEFA FFP rules to ok a qualifying club playing in Europe.

    Sevco cannot meet the 3 yrs accounts requirements in National Club Licencing but with such an open approach to Membership the SFA could grant it. I would then expect Green to convince them that he has the wherewithal to see Sevco through to the end of the season and if he can,in spite of only having projections rather than past accounts, the SFA will exceptionally grant a club licence.

    What is interesting is the concept of them having a Membership at all to transfer. They had an SFA Membership because they had an SPL Membership share. That share has now gone to Dundee, that is why Greene was at todays meeting as Oldco still held that Membership. However with the SPL Membership gone you would think there was no SFA membership to transfer because with the SFA membership being automatic on being accepted into the SPL, you would expect it to stop automatically when leaving the SPL and the SFL process for granting Membership which is NOT automatic taking over..

    Treating Sevco as a brand new applicant avoiding the sanctions that come with it being seen as a transfer, especially if it means they can hire players, might make losing their history to stay alive now worth doing. That btw would not stop titles being stripped from Oldco since only Oldco hold those titles but it swerves the Appeal judgement.

    I should have apologised for being confusing rather than pedantic really but licensing and membership are two different things and are NOT interchangeable. They SHOULD be the same but that ties down the SFA. Had they been the same Rangers would have been out of the SPL at the same time they were told they were out of Europe – end of March, early April?

    This whole thing came about because the SFA played fast and loose with issuing a licence each year, particularly the ones the gave the OK to play in Europe and especially last season with the unpaid wee tax bill.

    That club licensing system has to be adopted as the only way of granting SFA Membership as it defines the criteria which are designed to protect all clubs from themselves and others bad management as well as the incredibly poor judgement it allowed Regan to exercise since the end of March.

  14. Auldheid says:

    Andy says:

    17/07/2012 at 2:53 pm

    Snap in that the conclusion I reached at the end of my post above that dropping all pretense to be Rangers better suits Greene and the SFA’s purpose.

    What have the got to lose? The titles that will be removed are Rangers titles not Sevcos. Even if Sevco get past existing hurdles their titles will have gone. Their history in their supporters memories will be intact and Ibrox, if they hold on to it will be the reminder. Even if Ibrox were lost the mememort and history in it will last for two generations (that as good as history gets in terms of affecting today.

    The SFA lose out on the fines, other clubs lose out on payments due although they could be deffered until Sevco are better placed to pay them and the gam can get on with being a game again.

    Rangers wanted it both ways, – be new to avoid the tax debt, be old to keep their support and its income. Reality is telling them that was never on. Time they accepted reality.

  15. ParmaHamster says:

    All this today and hardly a mention of tax cases, big or wee. With no irony or offence intended, they haven’t gone away, you know.

    Anyone still think that Hector will be the final arbiter in this whole bangshoot?

  16. smartie1947 says:

    Am in a friendly argument at present with a fan of a SFL club. I mentioned that I had seen several posts on this site over the last 2-3 days which seemed to suggest that £12 was the cost of basic admission for an SFL3 fixture, as this had been used as a projection for Sevco’s future income streams.
    He disagreed, stating that the sum of £12 was the minimum cost, but that there was no maximum cost laid down. He quoted an example of RRFC fans being charged £20 at Dundee last season, when the minimum cost for SPL1 was then £17.
    Clearly Sevco would be expecting far more than £12 from their adoring fans if there is no fixed cost.
    Can anyone enlighten me?

  17. Perry Whyte says:

    For 10 points, who is willing to hazard a guess which securrity outfit has the Hampden contract?

  18. Brenda says:

    Why are regan, ogilvie and donkey still in post they have failed miserably whatever way you look at it?

  19. Auldheid,

    SFA membership does not lapse when a club leaves the SPL.If it did Dunfermline would need to reapply for membership following relegation.

    And the former Rangers were SFA members long before the SPL was ever thought about anyway.

  20. HirsutePursuit says:

    Auldheid says:

    17/07/2012 at 3:01 pm
    Rate This

    HirsutePursuit says:

    17/07/2012 at 2:43 pm

    We are on the same page. I posted last night that SFA Membership and a Club Licence were two different things and the term is not interchangeable…
    [apologies for severe edit!]
    ===========================
    Sorry, missed your excellent post from yesterday… I do my best; but, sometimes just can’t keep up!!

    I had assumed, until this morning that the conflation of SFA Membership/Club Licence was simply a brassed-necked construct of the MSM. To see it presented in black & white on the SFA’s website is just scandalous.

    Taking this together with the Donkey on Radio Scotland yesterday – saying that everything that had been proposed to get Sevco in the SPL or SFL1 (but voted down by them pesky club chairmen!) was within the existing rules – you just have to wonder when this nonsense will stop.

    Still, it shows the job is not yet done.

  21. Andy says:

    Auldheid says:
    17/07/2012 at 3:08 pm

    Rangers wanted it both ways, – be new to avoid the tax debt, be old to keep their support and its income. Reality is telling them that was never on. Time they accepted reality.
    ____________
    according to CG on sky news everyone else wants it both ways old co for sanctions from sfa

    newco for having to re apply to sfl

    its easy for him to sort out
    just say we are nothing to do with old club

    and apply as a new club to the sfa

  22. Perry Whyte says:

    The twitterati are in mourning at the news that @StewartRegan account has gone. Rumours of Stewie now posting @SevcoRegan or @NewcoRegan are as yet unfounded.

  23. Rocky sullivan says:

    HirsutePursuit on 17/07/2012 at 2:43 pm

    ———————-

    This is what I was driving at in my earlier post concerning the transfer embargo being applied to the new entity.

    None of this seems on the level. There’s something going on here.

  24. richard cranium says:

    Can i add this to the interesting comments about match admission prices…..taken from the Guardian, 2010…….you can draw yer own conclusions I’m sure……

    “Borussia Dortmund has the biggest stand in the world. The Yellow Wall holds 26,000, and the average ticket price is €15 (£13) because they know how valuable such a fan culture and supporter base is.”

    ……..did I read today £20 for Raith Rovers??????

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/apr/11/bundesliga-premier-league

  25. ExiledCelt says:

    richard cranium says:

    17/07/2012 at 3:44 pm

    Can i add this to the interesting comments about match admission prices…..taken from the Guardian, 2010…….you can draw yer own conclusions I’m sure……

    “Borussia Dortmund has the biggest stand in the world. The Yellow Wall holds 26,000, and the average ticket price is €15 (£13) because they know how valuable such a fan culture and supporter base is.”

    *****

    Plus being a keen BVB fan when I was there, I can furhter confirm that the 13 quid ticket includes train fare to and from the game.

  26. CBQ says:

    Re Sky and the TV deal

    Sky only show 30 matches from Scotland per season (as do ESPN).

    Sky show 115 from the EPL per season.

    By my reckoning then, Scottish matches represent just 26% of their English coverage.

    From the figures bandied about on here, Sky paid £80m for five years worth of Scottish games?

    So, for 150 matches that’s £533,333 per game? (Seriously? Are they mad?)

    In England, Sky and BT have just paid £1Bn for five years(? – is it 5 years?).

    So, say Sky paid £750m of that.

    That’s £750,000,000 for 575 games which is £1.3m per game (Seriously? Are they mad?).

    So are we saying the entertainment value of the average EPL game is really worth just under 2.5 times that of a Scottish game?

    Erm, well, that’s probably about right? No?

    I can’t see that Sky have the rights for the footie in any of the “diddy” countries – discussed here previously as having much better deals than Scotland’s (e.g. Belgium, Norway etc – they don’t even have Germany – I can only see Spain as being shown regularly).

    So who is paying £44m for Norway?

    Etc Etc

    Having said all that, I am in no doubt whatsoever that television rights have ruined football throughout the world.

    From some site or otther that gies info on Footie coverage on TV…

    “Live Football On Sky Sports includes flagship coverage of Live Premier League Football On TV with 115 matches being shown live during 2012/2013.

    Sky Sports coverage of the UEFA Champions League includes all live matches on Wednesday match nights and 7 live matches on Tuesday match nights, including shared live coverage of the UEFA Champions League Final. Sky will also be showing live coverage of the UEFA Super Cup Final.

    Sky Sports Football League coverage includes 75 live matches from the nPower Championship, League One and League Two, including exclusive live coverage of the Football League Play-Off’s. Sky also screens live coverage of the Capital One Cup from the first round onwards including exclusive live coverage of the Capital One Cup Final. Sky also broadcasts live coverage of the Johnstone’s Paint Trophy and Women’s FA Cup Final.

    Sky Sports live coverage also includes Live Scottish Football, with 30 live matches a season from the SPL, Live Spanish Football with matches from La Liga and the Copa Del Rey, Irish Carling Premier League, and Live U16’s Victory Shield Schoolboy Football.

    Football on Sky Sports also includes a wealth of international football coverage including selected live England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland World Cup 2014 qualfiers.”

    I’m sure someone on here with time on their hands can tidy this rubbish argument up?

    Cheers

  27. CBQ says:

    PS Monetary stats from the Donkey Doncaster School of estimating…

  28. smartie1947 says:

    richard cranum @3.55

    But Raith Rovers were the away side at Dundee.
    I don’t want Dortmund’s stand to deflect my basic query re SFL3 ticket prices
    Thanks anyway.

  29. iki says:

    StevieBC says:
    17/07/2012 at 12:13 pm
    And I wonder if McCoist will have the gall to belatedly attempt a proper apology via the media…?
    No, he wouldn’t be that cynical would he…
    ========
    Jabba will opine that Ally made those remarks whilst manager of Rangers. Why should the manager of The Rangers be held accountable?

  30. Auldheid says:

    Gordon Johnston says:

    17/07/2012 at 3:21 pm

    Rangers were not relegated they went bust. That is the difference. Their SFA share should have gone bust with them and a new Membership been considered. All sorts of exceptions and conditions could have been applied to that acceptance but now its contortions to keep the illusion of history. That illusion will stay anyway. D&P when asking the SFA about SFA Membership should have been told ” no” “it depends”, not it was a Rangers asset to sell. The SFA says Sevco bought the SFA Membership but how can an SFA Membership be purchased? See Hirsutes point re article 14.

    Since then most of the sanctions that justified treating things as a transfer have happened, the only big one remaining for supporters is the loss of titles and that can still be applied to Rangers/Oldco.

    The Appeals panel is now a hurdle for both SFA and a club now virtually starting fom scratch. the SFA can write off the fines and Sevco can arrange deferred payment on other football sums…

    I would argue that the continuing SFA Membership is linked to the SPL membership and when that lapses so does the SFA Membership. I would further strongly argue that the SFA Membership should have clear compliance criteria to avoid all doubt and that criteria should be the same as club licensing which is intended to satisfy Scottish football that any new member is fit to be allowed membership.

  31. PG says:

    I think the new EPL deal is £3bn for 3 years

  32. smartie1947 says:

    Plus being a keen BVB fan when I was there, I can furhter confirm that the 13 quid ticket includes train fare to and from the game.

    Free train tickets included sounds a great deal. Should I tell them I live in Kirkcaldy?

  33. Trimm Trab says:

    CBQ says:
    17/07/2012 at 3:49 pm
    —————————–

    The current Sky deal was £65 million over 5 years. The proposed deal is/was £80 million over 5 years.

  34. campsiejoe says:

    CBQ @ 3:49 pm

    Think your numbers ever so slightly out
    It would appear Sky will pay £6 million per game
    Check this article out

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2158825/Premier-League-sell-TV-rights-3-billion-BT-Sky.html

  35. Gwared says:

    Erm, guys I am today confused, I know that the GEFAKAMBB is flying to Zurich today because Corsica said so, and thats good enough for me, where is the suggestion that CG is heading there also??

  36. rantinrobin says:

    McCoist faces disciplinary action following comments against SFA tribunal panel

    First game :Brechin City; 28th July
    Glebe Park, famed for having a hedge running along one side of the pitch, holds 3,960 fans

    Ally will be sent behind the hedge!

  37. ExiledCelt says:

    smartie1947 says:

    17/07/2012 at 3:57 pm

    Only if you can find Kirkcaldy on this page 🙂

    http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/index.shtml

  38. kennymcluskey says:

    Sky Television: Do something!

    Sky know what a bargain Scottish Football has been for them in recent times, and are fully aware of the grumbling in the Scottish market. They realise that fans of many Scottish clubs are considering cancelling or reducing their Sky package over various issues related to Scottish football.

    I would suggest that fans could call Sky to make changes to their own package, and mention your disappointment at the small amount of money paid for Scottish football.

    It will not take as many as you might think in making (small) changes to their package to give Sky some food fot thought.

    You will know if you have other done this, for whatever reason, within days – Livingston call centre will contact you and other some “special” to retain your custom.

    When I said earlier that “It will not take as many as you might think”, we will be supported by a lot of “Blues” fans who will be doing the same. I cant imagine them wanting to view the SPL.

  39. paulmac says:

    richard cranium says:
    17/07/2012 at 3:44 pm

    Can i add this to the interesting comments about match admission prices…..taken from the Guardian, 2010…….you can draw yer own conclusions I’m sure……

    “Borussia Dortmund has the biggest stand in the world. The Yellow Wall holds 26,000, and the average ticket price is €15 (£13) because they know how valuable such a fan culture and supporter base is.”

    ……..did I read today £20 for Raith Rovers??????

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

    My son visited Milan this year and decided to take in the AC Milan v Lecce league game…

    £12 got him in and £15 got him fron row amongst the hard core…he decided on the £12 seat and keeping his top on…he said it was a decent game…good vibrant atmosphere in the San Siro…thats right the San Siro for £12…

    Now I’m sure the sponsorship and TV revenue etc may allow a club like AC Milan to provide tickets at low cost…

    Scottisg football needs to take a long hard look at what it is charging

  40. Auldheid,

    I was referring to this part of your KDS repost:

    “However with the SPL Membership gone you would think there was no SFA membership to transfer because with the SFA membership being automatic on being accepted into the SPL, you would expect it to stop automatically when leaving the SPL and the SFL process for granting Membership which is NOT automatic taking over”

    SFA membership does not stop when a club leaves the SPL.

    My view throughout this has been that Sevco is a new club and should apply as such with no sanctions. But the fiction of a transfer is needed as it would not meet the criteria

  41. Allyjambo Taxpayer says:

    I think it is necessary that some form of RFC get access to the SFL. Not for any financial implications but rather to prevent any entity, that claims their identity, to buy some other club and move them to Ibrox (or wherever). I’m pretty sure that if some newco is already in the league structure then no one will be able to do that particular switcheroo as it would clearly lead to 2 RFCs (of sorts) in the league.

    It appears to me that the SFA are now trying to pay some lip service to the rules by saying that Sevco are unable to gain entry in their own right, lack of accounts etc, and so their only route in is if they gain the tranfer of oldco’s membership. As some have said, this is still outwith the rules but I suspect is seen as a bit less ‘outside the rules’ than the alternative. At the same time they are not going to get away with gaining this membership scot-free and will have to accept the sanctions that the SFA want to impose (possibly to ensure UEFA and FIFA’s approval) and this will gain them the much sought after (by them) history and right to call themselves ‘Rangers’.

    I think a crippled Rangers in SFL3, with a transfer embargo and the requirement to pay millions in outstanding football debt, is a far more attractive prospect than a completely new club, debt free, taking over an innocent club, probably one we all admire now for their stance, and joining at a much higher level. Add to that the fact that they would perhaps gain the reduced titles of oldco but they would also receive the mantle of the biggest cheats the sport has ever known, and have to live with that!

    All that said, I still can’t see them lasting the season, even if they do get SFA Membership.

  42. campsiejoe says:

    kennymcluskey @ 4:11 pm

    If Sky decide to short change us, then I will be cancelling my Sports/ESPN package, Broadband and phone, but my wife won’t let me get rid of Sky altogether
    It;s obscene, that the proposed new deal is worth less annually than three EPL games

  43. kennymcluskey says:

    Sky television’s £80m up from £65m, is probably not a bad increase at 23%. The problem is that the £65m was just a very low base to start from.

  44. Auldheid says:

    Andy says:

    17/07/2012 at 3:25 pm

    I can understand why the SFA wanted to take the “its the same club “approach in order for sanctions to apply as well as preserving the illusion that Ranger’s SFA Membership was uninterrputed. To have said no to a D&P enquiry would have made the job of selling Rangers nigh impossible and the SFA would not have wanted to be responsible for that.

    But is SFA Membership a perpetual asset of any club that once granted is set in stone? Should it not be a live matter under annual review – like a club license?

    If Sevco bought the SFA Membership as an asset what was the value of that asset based on? RangersIA or the “Strong Rangers”?

    My thinking now is that given events since the SFA took the transfer of membership line, if they want to get themselves and Sevco off the hook, both now treat Rangers as dead with some outstounding issues to be taken up by the their executor and survivors and Sevco are treated as a new application.

    The strategy of calling it a transfer of Membership probably hoped to avoid what has actually happened in terms of consequences, but if they were officially a new club (call them New Rangers) in SFL3, out of Europe for 4 years and Old Rangers are to lose past titles, most reasonable supporters will be satisfied justice was done,. It would mean accepting a new application required exceptional granting, but as long as the SFA were satisfied Greene had the resources to see then through the coming season,, most reasonable men would understand the change in tack if it were to happen of course…

  45. minesastella says:

    paulmac says:
    17/07/2012 at 4:15 pm

    My son visited Milan this year and decided to take in the AC Milan v Lecce league game…

    £12 got him in and £15 got him fron row amongst the hard core…he decided on the £12 seat and keeping his top on…he said it was a decent game…good vibrant atmosphere in the San Siro…thats right the San Siro for £12…

    Been to Milan twice in last 5 years to watch us play AC in Champions League. On the second occasion, my mate lost his ticket for the match. He bought a replacement from a bank in Milan (that’s one of their ticket outlets). He was in the section immediately in front of me…..without the restricted view behind a mesh (designed to prevent fans throwing scooters on to those below), and wasn’t held back for 45 minutes after the game had finished. He paid €18 for his replacement ticket. His original ticket…for our section, was €42

  46. Auldheid says:

    Gordon Johnston says:

    17/07/2012 at 4:16 pm

    I was only thinking of the going bust situation Gordon.

    I think it should have been treated as new as well, but can understand the reluctannce of the SFA to say so then.

    I think conditions have changed since.

  47. ExiledCelt says:

    Over on KDS there are exceprts being remembered from our resident nuclear scientist Barcabhoy – mentioning EBTs in 2006 …..respect!!!

    http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=11596509&t=8707052

  48. GS says:

    Slightly OT, but I’ll call these guys up and let them know they have missed out Sevco

    http://www.businessinsider.com/most-valuable-sports-teams-manchester-united-2012-7#10-arsenal129-billion-10

  49. scottc says:

    kennymcluskey says:
    17/07/2012 at 4:18 pm
    0 0 Rate This
    Sky television’s £80m up from £65m, is probably not a bad increase at 23%. The problem is that the £65m was just a very low base to start from.

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

    Am I correct in thinking that the £65m was a ‘last minute’, take it or leave deal because they had made such an erse of things previously? Was it maybe the whole Setanta thing?