7-2 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 i need a bit of help. Trying to do my fixed odds for the weekend. Got Aberdeen v St Mirren down for a 1-1 draw, but unsure if St Johnstone v Rangers will finish 11-1, 10-2, or 8-4 for Rangers. Thoughts? You obviously haven't seen us for a while. It'll be 0-12...in fact I'd even go as far as to add in the Chairman's casting vote and make it 0-13 we're so bad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I may have missed it in all the smoke and mirrors of the voting numbers but why is any decision being moved from the Board to the clubs? The obvious thought is that the Board would vote against Rangers so it's being taken away from them. This isn't the case though as we had agreed the Board would let them back in no probs. So why move the decision? Obviously nothing is done in this stitch up without it leading towards the blue bigots remaining in the SPL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Surely you realise there are many clubs in the SPL who need these fans to 'Rally' now!! They have turned their backs on the clubs for a whole host of reasons and 2 horse race just being one of them. Maybe if those fans rallied a bit more often the league wouldn't be the 2 horse borefest it has come. But i know...It is all the Old Firms fault and at this time mostly Rangers fault for the 'other clubs' failings. Every club needs its fans all of the time. Thats why its important for the SPL chairmen not to alienate their own fans for the promise of TV money and to appease Rangers. Im not suggesting they should do anything out of the ordinary to exact any kind of revenge, or unjust punishment, on Rangers. Simply, that, their vote should be cast on sporting integrity grounds, not financial ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) If by a freak of nature lightning struck Murray park and Ibrox and both places burnt to a cinder. Would the insurance company pay out over 100 million as I assume thats what they are insured for ? (This also assumes all premiums are up to date ) Edited May 8, 2012 by superbigal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted May 8, 2012 Author Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) This is where they have to then do their sums correct if this happens say 400 fans lost times 19 league games = 7600 tickets lost + catering, programmes, lottery, merchandise against 4000 rangers times 2 or 3 games = 8000 or 12000 tickets gained (presuming your team is not on the Rangers boycott list) Plus the 400 your team lose will probably be lost for good, If the OF get their long term plan and get to go to England/Atlantic/Legoland league you'll have lost that figure on the long run. That figure of 400 may actually be low for some clubs, they are looking at shortterm gain instead of trying to grow their own fanbase and own product they are relying on the old firm to top up their coffers Also when trying to work out possible guesstimates of the loss of income from visiting Rangers fans if they were papped out of the SPL, you need to take a guess and factor back in what Rangers' replacement club in the SPL would bring in. If it were Dundee for example, that would suit Dundee United and St Johnstone quite nicely. Falkirk usually have a good visiting support too - so a guess would need to be made at that. Another thing about possibly losing up to 400 of your own fans (as a guess, lets keep it at 400), is that if 400 fans disappear - they'll likely have mates or relations that they go to games with. Many, many fans who decide to keep going will suddenly find that they're on their tod, and might think about joining their mate in walking away. The financial implications of losing Rangers to the SPL are undeniable - no-one, not one single person, I have heard trying to argue that it wouldn't cause a problem. However, it is now beyond a joke with all the shenanigans that have already happened since Feb 14 - including now the possibility of future Rangers and/or Celtic fan boycotts for differing reasons. Surely to Christ, any chairman with an ounce of decency and a fully-functioning brain can now see that Rangers are so toxic that bending over to save their sorry ass isn't the best option, the correct option, or the most desireable for the longer term option. All they can see is next season's £ signs - which we all agree are important, but as this saga starts to enrage fans of every team in the SPL, they surely must be looking beyond that, and seeing the bigger picture. He said, hopefully, but not holding his breath. Edited May 8, 2012 by pozbaird 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) If by a freak of nature lightning struck someone from P&B gets really pissed off and torches Murray park and Ibrox and both places burnt to a cinder. Would the insurance company pay out over 100 million as I assume thats what they are insured for ? (This also assumes all premiums are up to date ) Edit to add: this is more likely. Edited May 8, 2012 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjc Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Also when trying to work out possible guesstimates of the loss of income from visiting Rangers fans if they were papped out of the SPL, you need to take a guess and factor back in what Rangers' replacement club in the SPL would bring in. If it were Dundee for example, that would suit Dundee United and St Johnstone quite nicely. Falkirk usually have a good visiting support too - so a guess would need to be made at that. Another thing about possibly losing up to 400 of your own fans (as a guess, lets keep it at 400), is that if 400 fans disappear - they'll likely have mates or relations that they go to games with. Many, many fans who decide to keep going will suddenly find that they're on their tod, and might think about joining their mate in walking away. The financial implications of losing Rangers to the SPL are undeniable - no-one, not one single person, I have heard trying to argue that it wouldn't cause a problem. However, it is now beyond a joke with all the shenanigans that have already happened since Feb 14 - including now the possibility of future Rangers and/or Celtic fan boycotts for differing reasons. Surely to Christ, any chairman with an ounce of decency and a fully-functioning brain can now see that Rangers are so toxic that bending over to save their sorry ass isn't the best option, the correct option, or the most desireable for the longer term option. All they can see is next season's £ signs - which we all agree are important, but as this saga starts to enrage fans of every team in the SPL, they surely must be looking beyond that, and seeing the bigger picture. He said, hopefully, but not holding his breath. nail on the head once again my friend 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Handsome_Devil Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I may have missed it in all the smoke and mirrors of the voting numbers but why is any decision being moved from the Board to the clubs? The obvious thought is that the Board would vote against Rangers so it's being taken away from them. This isn't the case though as we had agreed the Board would let them back in no probs. So why move the decision? Obviously nothing is done in this stitch up without it leading towards the blue bigots remaining in the SPL. The obvious thought to me is Celtic, United, 'Well and St Johnstone don't want to be labelled as the four cowards who brought Rangers back and would rather everyone gets to share in the shame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 (edited) I may have missed it in all the smoke and mirrors of the voting numbers but why is any decision being moved from the Board to the clubs? The obvious thought is that the Board would vote against Rangers so it's being taken away from them. This isn't the case though as we had agreed the Board would let them back in no probs. So why move the decision? Obviously nothing is done in this stitch up without it leading towards the blue bigots remaining in the SPL. The way I read it is that they would rather dilute the 'wrath' aimed at the decision makers by having 12 chairmen vote rather than just the four. ETA: beaten to it by the Handsome Devil above Edited May 8, 2012 by ribzanelli 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightmile Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 I may have missed it in all the smoke and mirrors of the voting numbers but why is any decision being moved from the Board to the clubs? The obvious thought is that the Board would vote against Rangers so it's being taken away from them. This isn't the case though as we had agreed the Board would let them back in no probs. So why move the decision? Obviously nothing is done in this stitch up without it leading towards the blue bigots remaining in the SPL. The simple answer is that the Chairman of the club you support has been threatened directly and indirectly by fans or represntatives of another more powerful club. Rather than be seen as one of a small group of 'reps' that takes a tough decision against Rangers he feels it should be all clubs that take that decision. Its called collective reponsibility and I agree with him. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteRoseKillie Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 TBH he picked a poor example to use as Inverness trips are not purely all about the football. I am sure Dundee United for example will see a marked fall in the travelling support and i believe( i could be wrong) that is why Thompson made the statement he did regarding Rangers and hinted he might vote in favour of the Newco. Don't be mistaken...I have said i wont go back if we agree to join the SPL and have financial penalties..I will though because when the renewal for the season tickets comes through the door i'll pay it as i always do. There are others that i wont name that have been looking for an excuse to not renew and they might not. Aye they could proper suffer, especially as rangers could be replaced by Dundee. Who the hell would turn up at Tannadice for that match? Looks like you've got yer knuckle-dragging hat on today, No 8. To be clear, we don't want rangers (or Govan Red Hands 1690) in the SPL. We don't want them in the third division. We don't want them in Scotland. We want them DEAD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 The obvious thought to me is Celtic, United, 'Well and St Johnstone don't want to be labelled as the four cowards who brought Rangers back and would rather everyone gets to share in the shame. The way I read it is that they would rather dilute the 'wrath' aimed at the decision makers by having 12 chairmen vote rather than just the four. I can understand that but from both your answers it looks like there has indeed been no reason actually given. Cheers. I shouldn't be surprised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 The simple answer is that the Chairman of the club you support has been threatened directly and indirectly by fans or represntatives of another more powerful club. Rather than be seen as one of a small group of 'reps' that takes a tough decision against Rangers he feels it should be all clubs that take that decision. Its called collective reponsibility and I agree with him. When was Steve Brown directly threatened? What was going to happen to him or Saints? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 When was Steve Brown directly threatened? What was going to happen to him or Saints? Are you actually against the principle of a decision as important as this getting taken by all the club chairmen? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 The cost of alienating your own fans can also increase through things such as refusal to buy strips, money they might spend in your bar (if you have one), the odd hospitality trip, etc, etc and the chairmen need to consider this in any financial implication also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Are you actually against the principle of a decision as important as this getting taken by all the club chairmen? Indeed. I don't think club Chairmen should be threatening Steve Brown at all let alone getting together to decide it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ribzanelli Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Haudit and Daudit dragging their feet? Shurely shome mishtake http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17990328 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaffenThinMint Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 WaffenThinMint. You git, for a split second I thought Guernica *was* coming to GOMA. I was already planning a trip! May as well, as it seems I certainly won't be coming up to watch any SPL games any more. No wonder The Guardian calls us the Euro Disnae League. I'm getting visions of hordes of ex-SPL fans going to GOMA, chanting "MO-NET! MO-NET!" and "Who's The Man Ray In The Black?" What have I started? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungolfin Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 Given that the SPL chairmen are of the opinion that Rangers are necessary for them to survive does that mean they'd start throwing games if newco Gers are in danger of relegation next season? Surely if Killie are sitting safely in 7th and Rangers are doing a Hibs then we could expect to see them lie down to gift them the 3 points and ensure their survival? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgowsaint Posted May 8, 2012 Share Posted May 8, 2012 If nothing else I think this saga is highlighting the ridiculousness of our 3 organisation set-up. If we had one governing body for the professional league system it would suit more than most to have the option of relegating Rangers of Glasgow 1690 to the first division: no points deduction over x amount of years. The reason Newco will stay in the SPL is that we do not have the option of freezing them out for one year, or even two. The SPL/SFA do not have the authority to pop them in the league below, an option that would seem far more appealing to the chairmen of the SPL in a keeping-everyone-happy sense. This situation has just highlighted a large number of the failings of Scottish football, and I fear the suits will not make any effort in resolving these once the Rangers situation is put to bed 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.