H_B Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Didn't the catholic church have a practice where you could avoid punishment for sins for a fee? Could be onto something there.... maybe that's where Chuck was when he said he met UEFA for the phantom meeting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Some half measures ARE available: - gate sharing - flat distribution of TV/naming rights/ etc money. Ina SPL context - with its c. 50 million GBP turnover Celtic would still be light years ahead of the rest, while the "best of the rest" like Hearts, Aberdeen or Dundee would see their c.8-10 million unaffected (or make minmal gains). It would be the 4-5 million crowd which would gain the most. Hence it would be 2nd to 12th mob drawing closer. Which could be a Good Thing in itself. Borys Although 60/40 is the split. It is preferable to the 100/0 split at the moment. Add in some other measures: - Salary Cap with minimum limits (89% of the cap must be spent from 2013) which in theory ensures that teams meet a certain standard - Central licensing of official league products (regardless of the team logo on the product) I would also suggest that the SPL/SFL/SFA have a read of the fabulous book The Business of Sports by Scott R Rosner and Kenneth L Shropshire that shows the benefits to a sport overall by Revenue Sharing. Revenue sharing does have a strong economic justification based upon the co-operation required between the teams to generate league revenue. Since the game is a joint effort, economic theory can be employed to suggest how revenues can be split to provide positive rather than negative incentives... Edited July 24, 2012 by strichener 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 And the website says "The supporters of AFC Wimbledon believe that our club is a continuation of the spirit which formed Wimbledon Old Centrals in 1889 and kept Wimbledon Football Club alive until May 2002. We consider that a football club is not simply the legal entity which controls it, but that it is the community formed by the fans and players working towards a common goal. We therefore reproduce the honours won by what we believe was, and will always be, 'our' club, in our community." There's no harm in believing. Lots of people believe, e.g., that - the Earth is flat - the world was created in six days - Santa Claus exists - the Pope is infallible They are all wrong too. Not sure I understand your point. These are all facts................no ? So, why wouldn't we all believe ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rustyarabnuts Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) - the Earth is flat - the world was created in six days - Santa Claus exists - the Pope is infallible - Jim Traynor is a journalist They are all wrong too sorted Edited July 24, 2012 by rustyarabnuts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why not? It was begun prior to the end of Oldco. If Newco is a continuation of Oldco and santions resulting from that investigation would be visited upon Newco as a result of their transfer of membership. That's my understanding anyway. Everyhting comes back to how Sevco were shoehorned into the SFL. They didn't apply like any other club would have to, so they cannot avoid the sins of the father. I'm not talking about letting them off the hook. The serious point is that it does not impact on Green's newco one bit, the only objections he can have is to protect the previous directors (unlikely) or to look as though he is protecting a "history". Neither of these make any sense in his current venture in which he's perfectly entitled to try to get a team back into the SFL and therefore add value to his investment. I'm cynical...it's nothing more than a get out clause. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'm not talking about letting them off the hook. The serious point is that it does not impact on Green's newco one bit, Why not? What if the sanction is that the membership is revoked? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bookies Love Me Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Don't think the Ayr and Kille fans will take too kindly to this description...... unless you are describing them as extreme(ly dissappointed)....always! Yeah I know before anyone says it. this is coming from a Peterhead fan. But as no-one knows who my "big team" are then I am safe Is it Buckie Thistle by any chance??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Henry Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I'm not talking about letting them off the hook. The serious point is that it does not impact on Green's newco one bit, the only objections he can have is to protect the previous directors (unlikely) or to look as though he is protecting a "history". Neither of these make any sense in his current venture in which he's perfectly entitled to try to get a team back into the SFL and therefore add value to his investment. I'm cynical...it's nothing more than a get out clause. Doesn't it? I'd suggest the Double Contracts have more to do with Rangers FC than they do with the the Oldco. In one sense I agree - I'd suggest the playing side of the club is bricking it at the thought of the result of the investigation far more than Green is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Totally and utterly unrelated to this thread (not that that has stopped anyone before) but why is Google showing up in the 'user(s) reading this topic'? Aye, typical, they've buggered off noo the snooping basturts! Edited July 24, 2012 by Stagmaster 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Where the F**k did you get that I wish those helpful buggers at the SFA would hurry up with our license Compulsory Liquidation: http://en.wikipedia....ory_liquidation The parties who are entitled by law to petition for the compulsory liquidation of a company vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but generally, a petition may be lodged with the court for the compulsory liquidation of a company by: the company itself any creditor who establishes a prima facie case ( In Rangers FC case - HMRC ) contributories[2] the Secretary of State (or equivalent) the Official Receiver Liquidator: http://en.wikipedia....iquidator_(law) ( In Rangers FC case, BDO Liquidators have been appointed on behalf of HMRC ) In law, a liquidator is the officer appointed when a company goes into winding-up or liquidation who has responsibility for collecting in all of the assets of the company and settling all claims against the company before putting the company into dissolution. Duties: http://en.wikipedia....or_(law)#Duties In compulsory liquidation, the liquidator must assume control of all property to which the company appears to be entitled. The exercise of his powers is subject to the supervision of the court. He may be compelled to call a meeting of creditors or contributories when requested to do so by those holding above the statutory minimum.In a voluntary winding-up, the liquidator may exercise the court's power of settling a list of contributories and of making calls, and he may summon general meetings of the company for any purpose he thinks fit. In a creditor's voluntary winding-up, he must report to the creditor's meeting on the exercise of his powers. The liquidator is generally obliged to make returns and accounts, owes fiduciary duties to the company and should investigate the causes of the company's failure and the conduct of its managers, in the wider public interest of action being taken against those engaged in commercially culpable conduct. A liquidator who is appointed to wind-up a failing business should act with professional efficiency and not exercise the sort of complacency that might have caused the business to decline in the first place. Misconduct: http://en.wikipedia....tion#Misconduct ( In the case of Rangers FC, Misconduct has taken place ) The liquidator will normally have a duty to ascertain whether any misconduct has been conducted by those in control of the company which has caused prejudice to the general body of creditors. In some legal systems, in appropriate cases, the liquidator may be able to bring an action against errant directors or shadow directors for either wrongful trading or fraudulent trading. The liquidator may also have to determine whether any payments made by the company or transactions entered into may be voidable as a transaction at an undervalue or an unfair preference. Where, during the investigation of the affairs of the company, the liquidator uncovers wrongdoing on the part of the management of the company, he may have power to bring proceedings for wrongful trading or, in extreme cases, for fraudulent trading. However, the liquidator cannot normally enter into a champertous agreement to assign the fruits of an action to a third party offering to finance the litigation, if the right to said action accrued solely as a result of the liquidator's statutory duties, instead of being a right to action that had existed before the liquidator came on the scene. The liquidator may also seek to set aside transactions which were entered into by the company in the time immediately preceding the company going into liquidation where he forms the view that they constitute an unfair preference or a transaction at an undervalue. Phoenix Companies: http://en.wikipedia....oenix_companies In the UK, many companies in debt decide it's more beneficial to start again by creating a new company, often referred to as a 'phoenix' company. In business terms this will mean liquidating a company as the only option and then resuming under a different name with the same customers, clients and suppliers. In some circumstances it may appear ideal for the directors, however if they trade under a name which is the same or substantially the same as the company in liquidation without approval from the Court they will be committing an offence under S216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (and equivalent legislation in UK regions). Persons participating in the management of the 'Phoenix' company may also be held personally liable for the debts of the company under s217 of the Insolvency Act unless the Court approval has been granted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abZlWqVeLzg 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fasda Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Why not? What if the sanction is that the membership is revoked? We'll go round in circles here! I believe that the "sanctions" for playing illegally registered players is to award the game(s) to the opposition (usually 0-3) and/or remove titles/trophies won where illegally registered players were used. The directors then may find themselves banned. You may be right on newco membership being revoked (i.e. I may be wrong!) but I don't think that's a sanction that is available for this and neither do I think there is a precedence? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Diamond Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 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, Why shouldn't we,we chose not to follow the Old Firm,and preferred to follow a local side.As they play out of the same rented stadium,i fail to see what the problem is.I can honestly say i will win this bet in stating i know a hell of a lot more Airdrie Utd fans than you do.We follow the club,but do know it is no longer the old Airdrieonians.We would like our old club back,but it wont ever happen.They died,and we now follow a renamed Clydebank....not an incarnate,or newco etc...and already existing club that is now renamed to Airdrie United. everything about them that made them work as a viable football club as just as it was before, just under a different legal entity. No shit Sherlock,we would be in a hell of a state if we didn't try to run the club similarly to the old one,or any one as a matter of fact.All clubs need a Chairman,board members,staff,players and a place to play at. Seeing as the Board are different,the badge is different,the team name is different...even the stadium name is now different,i think we can establish were not the old club.We may still play in a similar strip to the old team,and yes our manager and a couple of the coaches used to play for Airdrieonians,but they also played for various other clubs as well.So apart from those last few mentioned items i fail to see what the point is here. Airdrie United does not = Airdrieonians,we know that and keep getting reminded of it.So you can sadly keep thinking what you like about us,we know what we are....and it isn't Onians. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksgranda Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Is it Buckie Thistle by any chance??? Just because they play in green and white hoops doesn't make them a "big" team! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leepylee Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Ahh the most satisfying moment of my life today, I was introduced to a guy at a meeting and over the coffee break and the usual small talk I asked the guy who he supported " I'm a rangers man" he said proudly. Without missing a beat I shook my head condescendingly and said " no I mean WHO'S YOUR BIG TEAM " I was still chuckling for the full 3 minute ensuing lecture about their triumphant spl return capped off with regular champions league wins as they're now debt free !!! Ahh man I'm gony enjoy this 3 season holiday -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngsod Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Oh please, oh please, oh please... My link Here is the full team list for Pro Evolution Soccer 2013. Notable changes: Motherwell replace Rangers. Edited July 24, 2012 by youngsod 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mabawsa_Ritchie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Ahh the most satisfying moment of my life today, I was introduced to a guy at a meeting and over the coffee break and the usual small talk I asked the guy who he supported " I'm a rangers man" he said proudly. Without missing a beat I shook my head condescendingly and said " no I mean WHO'S YOUR BIG TEAM " I was still chuckling for the full 3 minute ensuing lecture about their triumphant spl return capped off with regular champions league wins as they're now debt free !!! Ahh man I'm gony enjoy this 3 season holiday I hope you reminded him about the £5.5m they will owe Chico Green? :lol: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellboy1978 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Oh please, oh please, oh please... My link Here is the full team list for Pro Evolution Soccer 2013. Notable changes: Motherwell replace Rangers. Saw this earlier. Superb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Ahh the most satisfying moment of my life today, I was introduced to a guy at a meeting and over the coffee break and the usual small talk I asked the guy who he supported " I'm a rangers man" he said proudly. Without missing a beat I shook my head condescendingly and said " no I mean WHO'S YOUR BIG TEAM " I was still chuckling for the full 3 minute ensuing lecture about their triumphant spl return capped off with regular champions league wins as they're now debt free !!! Ahh man I'm gony enjoy this 3 season holiday The "debt-free" argument doesn't really stand up, taking a logical progression to some of the claims by Rangers fans. I've heard a few arguments around the "fact" that they had a debt of only £18m, which was serviceable (?), and were trading at a profit before Whyte took over. If that's the case, why are they in such shit now, it's only simple arithmetic, surely? It's like me claiming to be debt-free cos I pay off my £2000 credit card bill with my £2000 salary, and I've got feck all to live on for the next month, until I go into a £2000 overdraft. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Ahh the most satisfying moment of my life today, I was introduced to a guy at a meeting and over the coffee break and the usual small talk I asked the guy who he supported " I'm a rangers man" he said proudly. Without missing a beat I shook my head condescendingly and said " no I mean WHO'S YOUR BIG TEAM " I was still chuckling for the full 3 minute ensuing lecture about their triumphant spl return capped off with regular champions league wins as they're now debt free !!! Ahh man I'm gony enjoy this 3 season holiday Those Sevconian cheating b*****ds are one of only a very tiny few clubs in Europe who are indeed actually debt free. They have a 51,000 (all-seated) capacity stadium and a multi-million pounds training ground all bought and paid for by the UK taxpayers (you & i) and 300+ creditors that they bumped. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagmaster Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 It's a pity it doesn't seem I am getting my wish when all this started. I desperately wanted Newco to have a totally different name and logo so there was no doubt that this was a new club and even the Orc's would have to agree. Something else which I remember wasn't answered when I asked earlier - will Newco and Celtic have the same sponsors this year? Will Newco receive less money because they are playing in a smaller league? 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.