timomouse
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by timomouse
-
-
Because like it or not it was all above board, the scheme was legal, accept it move on, I really do not care, its not going change anything now, feel free to keep providing the laughs tho.
That's debatable.
Lord Nimmo Smith has not said that the Dual contract scheme was legal, simply that the SFA's rules were written in a manner that makes it not possible to apply them retrospectively. Were dual contracts still ongoing, registration could and would be revoked. Therefore, it was not possible for a competitive advantage to be gained because the law cannot be applied.
But, most importantly, any question on legality of the scheme has to be postponed until the FTT appeal is heard. LNS has based his judgement on the FTT verdict which could be overturned. Were it overturned, then it would invalidate LNS' reasoning if, perhaps, not his overall judgement.
Anyway, vastly expanded thoughts on that are here: http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/44235765513/the-most-humiliating-day-in-the-entire-history-of
0 -
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/26370719528/financial-fair-play
Ideas for financial fair play rules to be introduced for league reconstruction. Hope it's interesting.
0 -
Newsnight Scotland are doing a special too. Mark Daly's on it.
And Gregory Ioannidis who promised on twitter that it will go on about things "not examined before" which should be good
0 -
Don't know if this has been replied to as my WiFi shut down for 36 hours but if Ibrox is riddled with asbestos then it should be shut down immediately and left unused until the deadly stuff can be removed. There is no question of bulldozers going in until specialist teams have removed all the suspect material.
Legally, it's fine to leave it there forever. As long as the asbestos isn't damaged, then there is no danger.
For further reading, I'd advise http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/24632893725/is-ibrox-undervalued
The fact is that, while more permissions are needed than normal, it would hardly be the first time a listed building has been demolished but, more likely, anyone redeveloping Ibrox would want to incorporate the listed front (and it's only the facade that's listed. None of the stand is). Ibrox for £4.59m (as in the CVA) is an undervaluation as long as the planning can be obtained. And if the stadium is undervalued then there are legal issues with the entirety of the CVA, as per http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/24599057974/legally-challenging-the-rangers-cva
0 -
The Guardian are saying Neil Doncaster has confirmed that an 8-4 is all that would be required to allow a 'newco' entry. Sorry if it has been posted previously but is this true?
It shouldn't be, but it's being framed as a rule change rather than a vote on a share transfer, so would only need 8-4
0 -
if the vote ended up 11-1 in favour of allowing Rangers back into the SPL and the 1 was, for the sake of argument, St Mirren, would those who boycotted the SPL because of the Rangers decision consider going to watch St Mirren instead as, after all, they would be the defenders of all that's well and good. I know there would be different answers depending on whom the 1 who stood up for sporting integrity was, but as a generalisation, what would you do?
0 -
McInally's a journo so possibly just headline grabbing, but that Ioannidis is on it gives it credibility.
0 -
Don't think it's getting to the vote today. Gregory Ioannidis (Sammy's agent and Celtic lawyer) and Brian McInally (Mirror Journo) both reporting today that the liquidation has begun.
Didn't think they'd take that four horsemen banner so seriously!
0 -
The Swallow Hotel, fast food outlets near Ibrox, pubs and stuff... WTF do they have to do with what the SPL and SFA should solely be concerning themselves with? All they should be doing is acting fairly and without fear or favour in 'dealing with' Rangers FC.
My club moved stadiums. The Cosmo (an excellent fish and chip shop) on Love Street has lost matchday business. Similarly the famous Wee Barrel pub on Love Street will have lost business. So will the grocer shop on the corner right next to our old ground. When our directors were sitting around the table deciding to move St Mirren to a new home - does anyone think they said "This stadium move will save the club, but what about the effect on the Cosmo Chippy?" No. No. No... with all due respect to the Cosmo Chippy, an establishment I have personally frequented since Sir Alex Ferguson's days at Love Street in 1977.
If the SPL sit around the table tomorrow, and anyone says "Right, Rangers are guilty of X, Y, and Z... but hold on, what about sales of Zinger twisters in the KFC on Paisley Road West?" - then I will personally travel to Hampden and kick them in the stones.
It shouldn't matter to the clubs, but the local MSP, MP and probably even Alex Salmond will have been on the phone to Messrs Regan and Doncaster to say "look lads, we don't want any job losses here, if you know what I mean". Community issues can't be disassociated from football because there are so many vested interests in Rangers. I don't think it should count, but the chairmen and owners have to look after themselves and they will have been made aware of the stakes. To take your example, what was to stop The Cosmo putting in an objection to planning permission? So what's to stop the owner of a local establishment round Ibrox calling up their MSP saying "you've got to help Rangers", the MSP passing the message on to the SPL and the SFA and it being another thing for them to consider. I agree that it's a minor part of the overall financial consideration around Rangers, but it's going to influence the decisions of governing bodies.
If this was nothing but a matter of sporting integrity, then Rangers would be dead already and, with the sheer scale of cheating, good riddance. But for the John Yorkston's of this world, it's much more than a matter of sporting integrity. Paying the bills comes first. The real question is "what is the cost of sporting integrity?"
Does that factor in the loss of roughly 30,000 from each home gate?
That was the £17.7m per season in lost matchday revenue
0 -
Is that certain, in the same way as they were certain to win the treble this season? Certain that the referee in the SCLC final had cost Lennon that treble?
Or certain in the sense of Celtic certainly exhibiting all the signs of hubris?
Without Rangers in the league, it is certain that Celtic will win the title for the forseeable future and, therefore, certain they will qualify into the Champions phase of qualifying - should have made myself clearer there. They just have to perform against the opposition put in front of them and, if it's Malmo and Dinamo Zagreb (who they played after beating Rangers), Celtic are more likely than not to reach the groups, albeit even the most optimistic Celtic fan would have to admit that even then we'll screw it up somehow!
I don't think that's much of an assumption. Take Rangers out of the league and bookies would offer very skinny odds on Celtic winning the league. I'd be prepared to go with their assessment, after all, they've most to lose.
0 -
Its no suprise to see a Celtic fan sticking up for Rangers. After all, Celtic have the most to lose if Rangers go under.
That's very much not the case. From the last of the blog posts:
Total Cost of the admittance of Rangers NewCo to Celtic = £4.55m merchandising + £500k - £17.7m match day revenue = £12.65m loss per season (but once the European money is added, Celtic could be about £7.35 million better off over per season than they are currently)
If Celtic hold up their end of the bargain on the pitch, they win either way. Getting into the Champions League groups is worth a legitimate £20 million to the club and qualification to the Champions playoffs is all but certain. Celtic can easily survive without Rangers as long as they perform to their potential on the pitch and, if/when a NewCo got into the SPL, their revenues would rise further. Whatever happens to Rangers, if Celtic perform on the pitch, they are quids in.
0 -
Fallacious justifications FTW!
How so? You've the Glasgow Swallow on Paisley Road - 5 mins walk from Ibrox. Full every game. Without any games at Ibrox, their weekend revenue will drop like a stone and they'd have to let people go. You've got Pizza Hut and KFC 5 mins walk away as well. Again, their income would drop massively. At the end of the day, Alex Salmond and HMRC don't care about sporting integrity, they care about numbers and job losses in Glasgow (not counting those who work at Ibrox) are hardly going to help the economy.
One debate I've read on this before that I think is interesting is a Dons fan who said he felt no pity for those working for Rangers in a non-footballing capacity (cleaners, etc) as "they know the history of the club and what it represents". That's as equally a callous way of looking at it as is just looking at figures. But I wrote those three blog posts to stir debate so, at the end of the day, any opinions stated on the posts, I'm more than happy to discuss because the more the numbers are discussed, the better we can understand the decisions SPL chairmen are going to make.
0 -
Total nonsense. If Rangers didn't exist then that £70 million the Rangers fans spend on travel wouldn't disappear. Those Rangers fans would have £70 million extra money to spend on other leisure activities.
But it wouldn't be spent in hotels, restaurants (well, McDonalds, anyway), etc. It may well not even be spent in Scotland - plenty of Rangers fans travel up from England/Northern Ireland. And there is no guarantee they'd spend it at all, may well just save it up. Either way, that £70million figure that Rangers fans spend as part of football tourism each way would be lost as there would be no football for them to be tourists of.
I work in hotels and the market is such that many Glasgow hotels are reliant upon football income to survive. They are busy when Celtic or Rangers are playing, they are much quieter when they are not. It's not only likely, it's certain, that Rangers liquidation would result in job losses in associated sectors because the football tourists would not come. That would then take further money out of the economy. Rangers football tourism as income to the Scottish economy, were it to disappear, would have knock-on effects that would take such a large figure out of the economy.
-1 -
Series of 3 blogs on the costs, benefits and overall profit/loss from Rangers being in the SPL - hope it makes interesting reading:
Post 1 - the cost of Rangers to Scottish football
post 2 - the amount of money Rangers bring to Scottish football
Post 3 - the overall balancing out of Rangers costs/profits to the SPL
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
As the person who compiled all that, a couple of things to point out.
Firstly, if a game was televised and it's not on there, then it didn't get enough viewers to be on there. It's compiled from BARB, who publish ratings for every TV channel so it is accurate. This is also how the SPFL track figures as well - they've told me as such.
As Rangers TV isn't on, you know, TV so figures aren't compiled and anyone publishing it wouldn't be verifiably neutral so if you saw any, I wouldn't trust them.
As for the whole "Rangers are more popular than everyone" nonsense, both Hibs and Hearts get more viewers than Rangers, never mind Celtic and, what you can't deny is that interest in the club is down, season in season, by about a quarter - as the stats show.