Wings Over Scotland
-
Posts
121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Wings Over Scotland
-
-
The Very Sorry Song: the end of the Rangers saga:
0 -
Don't blink: why Sevco are trying to hold Scottish football to ransom, and why they can't win.
0 -
I think he's a bit disconcerted that after The Scotsman kindly put him right on his mistaken "scoop" about the TV money, and he ungraciously called them thieves and fools on his blog, he's finding everyone on here agreeing with the Scotsman.
Had this morning's Scotsman been published at 7pm last night you could arguably have had at least a vague semblance of a point. As it wasn't, though, you just sound like a tit. But blimey, don't people get huffy when you actually try to establish the facts rather than just repeating whatever pish you've heard on Twitter?
0 -
So, TV rights for cup games can be sold by Newco then if this is only applicable for league competitions.
That would be my interpretation, yes, consistent with various other rules eg:
71.6 For the avoidance of doubt all income derived from the League Cup andChallenge Cup Competitions whether by way of sponsorship, broadcasting
or otherwise will be administered separately by the Board in accordance
with the League Cup Competition Rules and the League Challenge Cup
Competition Rules.
and with the fact that an arrangement has already been made to broadcast Sevco's 1st-round match vs Brechin in the Challenge Cup.
(Views pending examination of the LCCR and the LCCCR, of course. Anyhoo, 26C and clear blue skies down here, I'm off for a stroll.)
0 -
I'd be very surprised if the SFA don't refer you to the definition quoted earlier in the thread, that the term "member" is used loosely and can define either a full member alone or a full member and associate member depending on how the SFA choose to interpret their own laws. Which again, is entirely the point.
1. That wasn't a "definition", it was an interpretation, and one I believe to be entirely mistaken.
2. We're talking about the rules of the SFL here, not the SFA. The SFA has indeed tried very hard to make Rangers a special case, but there is as yet no evidence for the SFL doing so.
0 -
And there the last twenty odd pages comes round to its third full circle. I agree with you and the prevailing sentiment; Rangers didn't die as a club, but if they are to start anew in the third division, they should do so as an associate member of the league, be entitled to the same financial fallback as everyone else
Um, they'll be entitled to the same "financial fallback" as any other Associate Member, whatever that turns out to be. Whether it means they get a share of TV revenue or they don't (and you'll be pleased to know I've contacted the SFL to clear Rule 68 up, awaiting response), there's currently no evidence to suggest they'll be made a special case.
0 -
For the record, I have put Wings and Strings on ignore until further notice.
For the record, I don't give a bee's bawhair.
0 -
And am I to assume that you believe that Newco will not be required to adhere to 71.4 since they are only an associate member.
Hngh. See Rule 71.7.
The Board may require any Member or Associate Member to provideservices and facilities pursuant to any contract relating to sponsorship or
commercial involvement in the League Championship.
0 -
Yes, you are talking bollocks and you appear to have somehow missed off the most important word on the rule - that would be the first word "members". Rule 70 only refers to members and therefore the restriction on marketing is only on Members and not associate members and any text within the rule including reference to rule 71 is only for Members.
What you're suggesting there, then, is that Associate Members aren't entitled to enter into commercial arrangements independent of the League at all. The result of which is exactly the same as I noted earlier. I gladly concede your technical point, and note that it makes no difference whatsoever to anything.
0 -
By the same token, it doesn't matter to me that it's not the same company, all the people I know who supported Airdrie before support them now, everything about them that made them work as a viable football club as just as it was before, just under a different legal entity.
Good for you. The cold hard fact of the matter, though, is that they're NOT the same club in any legal sense, so you shouldn't say they are.
0 -
Getting pedantic here, but to quote Granny, refusal implies a choice.
Equally pedantically, it doesn't. It merely states an accurate fact. Numerous other words could have replaced "refused", but wouldn't have changed the meaning. "Declined" still implies that there was an option to comply. And of course, even though the SFA wasn't entitled to release the registrations, it could still have done so anyway (especially given its somewhat flexible attitude to other rules).
I don't really want to get bogged down in this just because some doughball (not you) didn't know the difference between implication and inference. The only person who can state authoritatively what I was or wasn't implying is me, because I'm the only one who knows. What's been inferred, on the other hand, is a matter of record.
0 -
I raised a minor but valid point.
No, you didn't. You made a mistake. You inferred something that was neither stated nor implied, then acted like a tool when your error was pointed out. I shall happily live without being obliged to engage further with you, though, so everyone's a winner.
0 -
Airdrie are still Airdrie
No they're not. They were Airdrieonians, now they're Airdrie United. They're not the same company, they don't have the same name and you won't find a single officially-authorised record listing Airdrieonians' achievements under the entry for Airdrie United, because they're actually a renamed Clydebank.
0 -
For clarity, the SFA have not refused to release registrations, they are powerless to do so. I just get tired of seeing them get blamed for everything..
I wasn't blaming them, merely stating the fact. They have refused to release the registrations BECAUSE they are powerless to do so, but refuse they have all the same.
0 -
Yes you did, you implied it. You didn't state it but you linked a decision on TUPE with the appeal to the SFA therefore implying that the SFA appeal process bore some relation to whether or not TUPE applied.
If you re-read your post I think you will agree.
Will it be fun if we engage in a discussion about the difference between "imply" and "infer"? If so, let me know and we'll all have a jolly super time.
0 -
Wings, do me a favour and stop replying to my posts, there's a good chap.
Gladly, the minute you stop talking pish in them.
0 -
I find that a very strange post. You're implying that the SFA will have some locus in deciding if TUPE will apply. They don't, neither will UEFA.
I'm not implying any such thing. I'm saying that the SFA have refused to release registrations until ordered by the relevant arbitrator to do so. The dispute is ongoing, whereas PMS stated inaccurately that it was resolved.
0 -
If we accept your logic then the Newco Rangers can negotiate their own TV deal as the rule that prevents them from doing so only mentions members this is rule 70.1:
Sorry, but that's bollocks, and you've even included the reason why it's bollocks in your quote:
must ensure that any such proposedarrangement or agreement does not and will not conflict with the
commercial arrangements or sponsorship agreements contemplated or
already negotiated by the Board on behalf of the League as contemplated
in Rule 71 (Commercial Arrangements by the Board)
What does Rule 71 say?
71.1 The Board may negotiate and conclude contracts on behalf of the Leagueand its Members with commercial sponsors, broadcasters, publishers and
others for the benefit of Members and of League football.
71.2 Without prejudice to the generality of Rule 71.1, the Board may and shall
be entitled to conclude and execute contracts and agreements on behalf
of the League and all or some of its Members and Associate Members
[...]
71.3 Such contracts shall include but shall not be restricted to:
71.3.1 central sponsorship of the League Championship;
71.3.2 transmission and recording by any means of fixtures provided by the
League
In other words, the League may negotiate with broadcasters for the benefit of its Members (significantly excluding the phrase "and Associate Members"), and any arrangements that a club may make on its own behalf must not conflict with that arrangement.
In other words, the League may negotiate coverage on behalf of Members AND Associate Members (71.2) - that is to say, it can sell rights to Sevco matches - but may do so solely for the benefit of Members, ie it does NOT have to give any of the revenues from that coverage to Sevco FC. Sevco FC cannot sell the rights to matches if the SFL has already sold them to someone else.
You may of course regard that as unfair, but it is explicitly provided for in the rules, and may legitimately be considered one of the restrictions and disadvantages of Associate Member status.
0 -
68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Full Member Clubs in the First Division;
Och, don't be so silly. The Constitution doesn't refer to clubs as "Full Members" at any point anywhere in its 207 pages. What it does regularly do throughout its length is distinguish between "Members" and "Associate Members". Doing so right in the middle of a Rule is staggeringly obviously not an accident.
You're also just factually wrong: Rule 68.4.2 refers to payments clubs based on league positions while talking about the Capped Limit, while Rule 68.4.3 separates them on the same basis in reference to the Excess, so the change in wording is nothing to do with that.
0 -
You'll only give yourself a headache trying to find anything conclusive in the rulebooks amongst all the ambiguities and contradictions. They'll interpret them as they see fit.
"Membership" can clearly include "Associate Membership" should they wish it to, and not if they don't.
While it's obviously true that the authorities can, have and will ride roughshod over their own rules if they so choose, it doesn't alter the fact that the meaning and intent of Rule 68 as it stands is crystal clear - the Capped Limit is for distribution to all members, the Excess is for distribution to full members only.
0 -
We can see that by the fact that TUPE applied (TUPE only applies where there has been a transfer of undertakings).
Amazingly enough, you're jumping the gun yet again. It very much LOOKS to any impartial observer that TUPE will apply, but it hasn't yet. Charles Green has filed an objection to former Rangers players moving to other clubs, and the SFA has refused to release their registrations pending a hearing. Southampton have, we're told, actually paid a transfer fee in respect of one ot the players concerned to bypass the dispute.
I have no idea why you're so astonishingly doggedly determined to treat things as done-and-dusted facts prematurely.
0 -
Selective reading I believe.
Not if read in context. Rule 68 is absolutely explicit in reference to "Members and Associate Members" the entire time it talks about distribution of the Capped Limit, then suddenly stops mentioning Associate Members at the exact point it starts talking about the Excess:
68. MONETARY AWARDS68.1 The League shall make monetary awards to each Member and Associate
Member in the three League Championship competitions.
68.2 For the purposes of this Rule 68, the surplus on the League’s Trading
Account shall be subject to a capped limit of £1,187,649 in Season
2008/09 (the “Capped Limit”).
68.3 The Capped Limit shall be adjusted each year by a percentage equivalent
to the difference between the Retail Prices Index issued on behalf of HM
Government for the month of March in the year of distribution and the said
index for the month of March in the preceding year. In the event of the
cessation of publication of such Index, the Board shall have power to
substitute such Index for adjustment purposes as it may consider most
closely reflects the impact of inflation upon the costs incurred by football
clubs in carrying on their business.
68.4 The surplus on the League’s Trading Account at the end of each financial
period shall be distributed to Members and Associate Members as follows:-
68.4.1 75% of the Capped Limit shall be divided equally among all Members and
Associate Members;
68.4.2 25% of the Capped Limit shall be disbursed among the Members and
Associate Members on an incentive ladder based system of payments; and
68.4.3 Any excess of the surplus above the Capped Limit (“the Excess”) shall bedistributed on an incentive based ladder system by the Board allocating:
68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the First Division;
68.4.3.2 33% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Second
Division; and
68.4.3.3 12% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Third Division.
It's really stretching credibility to believe that the timing of that change in wording is coincidental.
0 -
On further investigation, it does indeed appear that Sevco Scotland Limited will NOT be entitled, under current SFL rules, to a share of any TV revenue obtained through broadcasting its matches.
0 -
Answers such as "Oh we were never insolvent/liquidated" don't count.
Keep telling yourself that. But companies change their names every day and carry on, because they're the same company. Liquidation is the end.
0
Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!
in Celtic v Rangers, Rangers v Celtic
Posted
A Glebe Park Gallery:
http://wingsland.podgamer.com/a-glebe-park-gallery/