Sting777 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Ok then perhaps not a full house but grabbing some random stats show that for example Motherwell would pull in approx 2000 more fans for a home Game vs Rangers or Celtic than other SPL teams So whilst I admit i'm a fair bit off with saying 2 full houses, It certainly is 2 bumper crowds Yeah I agree you take a reasonably big travelling support, however if you are putting it at 2,000 extra a game, I reckon my club, with practically no hope of getting out of Div 1, thanks to the wonderful one up one down rule of the SPHell , regularly takes around 700 fans to most of our away games. If we were holding our own in the SPHell I reckon we would take around 1000 + to most away games as quite a few Div 1 clubs would . For a team like Rangers I would hardly call a crowd of 7,000 a bumper crowd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toaster Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 So at £250 per ticket, you're right after-all hardly the travelling fans will only be a small part of any loss to clubs revenue, the biggest part will be in terms of reduced TV money. People can bury their head in the sand all they like, if Rangers do not play in the spl then other clubs are going to be loosing money, and in the current state of Scottish football theres not many clubs that wont feel the pinch. its a catch 22 situation, Punish Rangers as they deserve and other clubs will suffer. The only fair solution would be a hefty punishment not involving demotion or removal from the league. -2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Cybertims is tweeting that. No source other than 'the source has not been far wrong before'. Etc and so on. Don't post shit that ain't confirmed FFS coz I nearly hit the tickly bit 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginge123 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I honestly believe that attendances will increase if Rangers go under. People will come back when there's something to play for, rather than everyone clamouring for 3rd spot. Having a chance to play in the Champions League is a much more attractive prospect. Does anyone know how much Rangers sympathisers are claiming clubs will lose? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 its a catch 22 situation, Punish Rangers as they deserve and other clubs will suffer. The only fair solution would be a hefty punishment not involving demotion or removal from the league. Your having a laugh there ain't ya ! why is your club appealing the embargo then ? that doesn't involve getting chucked oot like your big diddy club deserves FFS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I honestly believe that attendances will increase if Rangers go under. People will come back when there's something to play for, rather than everyone clamouring for 3rd spot. Having a chance to play in the Champions League is a much more attractive prospect. Does anyone know how much Rangers sympathisers are claiming clubs will lose? There will only be one CL spot for the foreseeable future - this year was a one-off chance for a "diddy" to make it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 hardly the travelling fans will only be a small part of any loss to clubs revenue, the biggest part will be in terms of reduced TV money. So 2000x25x2 = £100,000. So the remaining £900,000+ of this lost "million or more" is lost from the TV deal? I'd like to see these figures you have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drooper Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I was having a nother look at some figures form the last set of St Mirren FC accounts. The wage bill had been reduced by a whopping £700K from the previous year. Even taking account of cup run bonuses and a few other factors (possibly paying off the rolling contracts of MacPherson and Millen), this indicates to me that there is certainly scope for clubs to make pretty substantial savings without it being too catastrophic if push comes to shove. Obviously, we wouldn't want to trim things by a similar amount again unless required, but if this had to be done, so be it. During the same period, our revenue from commercial activities increased, so this can help offset any loss from TV money and Rangers supporters coming to SMP (bearing in mind also that another club would take their place). Cup revenue (inc. any TV games) and league placings can also have a bearing, but I think its fair to say that clubs will not budget for these variables (certaily not in terms of essential budgeting factors). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chazza1910 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Outwith the 4 Infirm bigotfests every season can you name me one SPHell game with Rankgers as the away team that has resulted in a complete sell out...excluding the obvious Championship winning games a la Killie last season Totally agree. They add couple of thousand to the gate which is not to be sniffed at, but not enough to spare them the bullet. Too much is trotted out about the OF being the saviours of Scottish football. Revolution is in the air. I've accepted them as our masters myself for long enough. But we've had enough. Why should they get all the glory, funded by pandering to pathetic bigots? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 I'm quite sure that I read (possibly on that lawyer guy's site) that HMRC will want to know who the investors are before agreeing to any CVA - reason being that they could be agreeing to receive payment from someone who has had previous for non-payment. What if Mr Whyte happened to be one of these 20 investors? Still think they wouldn't care who was on board? Are you saying they would refuse to do a deal because Whyte (or any other name you can dream up) was funding it? Whyte is no longer disqualified as a director, nor is he disqualified from making investments. Whatever HMRC does, they have to play strictly to a set of rules. I have no idea what the rule would be that allows then to say 'we don't like that shifty wee git'. Can you point us at where we might see such a ruling? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginge123 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 There will only be one CL spot for the foreseeable future - this year was a one-off chance for a "diddy" to make it. Jesus Christ. Either way, Celtic would slip up eventually right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyy Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/livingston/99924-livingston-threaten-legal-action-against-scottish-fa-over-rangers-situation/ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 So 2000x25x2 = £100,000. So the remaining £900,000+ of this lost "million or more" is lost from the TV deal? I'd like to see these figures you have. How much less will SKY actually offer ? I can't see them taking too much of the total amount which could equate to the all the other clubs being given maybe > < 20% less than they would with the rankers not there . So clubs losing vast amounts or 7 figures is fictional. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dublinarab Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Toaster is right in terms of the hit that will need to be taken. The loss of the 'bumper' away crowds could be reasonably absorbed but the TV deal renegotiation will hurt and will take a bug chunk out of the playing budget hence why guys like Houston are out saying 'if I lost 600k' I d have nothing left'. That is about 6/7 first teamers for us. However what rangers fans don't get is that we can cut our budgets as all will be in the same boat. Utd have just lost 5 of our highest earners. If need be they simply won't be replaced and we will have a first 11 and our u19s. If that's all we can afford than that is all we ll have. A concept that (even decent) rangers fans seem to not get their heads around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellboy1978 Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 So 2000x25x2 = £100,000. So the remaining £900,000+ of this lost "million or more" is lost from the TV deal? I'd like to see these figures you have. He's borrowed the Seville calculator 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Jesus Christ. Either way, Celtic would slip up eventually right? I genuinely think they would, yes. Particularly if a few years down the line there's a shitty mid-table Rangers back in the league causing trouble every now and again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spain Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 How much less will SKY actually offer ? I can't see them taking too much of the total amount which could equate to the all the other clubs being given maybe > < 20% less than they would with the rankers not there . So clubs losing vast amounts or 7 figures is fictional. Exactly my point. There's people on here much more clued up on the figures than I am, but this "losing a million or more" is just made up figures to try and bully and scare people into seeing it the way "ra peepul" want them to see it. f**k off and die Rangers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelegendthatis Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Aye, but even that is pretty ropey... were the SFA "agreeing" that demotion was "the right thing to do" - or were they accepting that demotion was a punishment which SFL was [1] entitled to apply and [2] was within the bounds of reason to apply? Within their own structure, notably. EDIT: And the bond-thing too. Even if the former, does the adjudication of an SFL punishment for administration bind them to such adjucations of their own punishments for misconduct & disrepute, particularly when the process has changed in the interim (with Livingston voting yes, btw)? Even if yes, does that entitle Livingston to sue? So yep, I'm with you on it being noise-making and not a realistic threat. Given the lack of tightness and clarity of the SPL and SFA constitutions and wooly rules as demonstrated over the last few months, I would amazed if Livingston don't have a very strong case. After all they were chucked out a few years back when people like Grorge Peat () and Gordon Smith () were the head honchos, and both equally ineffective (I am being politically correct here). When they made up things as they went along, with a view that "it would be all right on the night". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 http://sport.stv.tv/...gers-situation/ Livingston have written to the Scottish Football Association warning they may take legal action if the governing body fails to act upon Rangers' financial woes appropriately.STV understands the First Division club have outlined they would pursue up to £1.2m in lost revenue for their relegation to the Third Division in 2009 if the SPL side are not dealt with in a similar manner. The decision to demote Livingston, who were in administration but in the hands of prospective buyers, was made by the Scottish Football League prior to the start of the 2009/10 season. A failed appeal to the SFL was followed up by a submission to the Scottish FA, who ruled the punishment was fair and reasonable. I'm even more confused now. Why didn't they sue over Dundee? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEMON Posted May 15, 2012 Share Posted May 15, 2012 Thats pretty standard. When Rankgers go to Killie, Dunfermline, St Johnstone,Motherwell, Inverness etc the crowds are usually between 6-8,000, so lets get this full house crap out the equasion. Yeah you take a good travelling support but the days are long gone when a visit from the Infirm automatically meant a sell out exactly they aren't blockbuster material 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.