Rangers v Heart of Midlothian, 05/04/2015 (Match Rescheduled)

[weegienative]

Can you please show me figures documenting these increases in attendance? Any figure I've seen has shown anything but. Hearts and Hibs being the obvious exception this past year.

I think it's fairly safe to assume I touch a nerve with you seeing as this isn't the first time you've resorted to name calling rather than engaging in a debate supported by fact rather than sweeping statements, despite it being me who is apparently the knuckle dragger.

Fact - attendances are down.

Fact - scottish football can't attract a sponsor other than for an old firm semi final.

Fact - the TV contract had to be renegotiated at a much lower rate and rangers matches in the lower leagues included in it (I'm sure the same would have happened had it been Celtic relegated)

Fact - the SPL more or less engaged in a hostile takeover of the SFL to form the SPFL as they knew their product was nothing without the old firm.

Fact - the quote by someone else (possibly you) earlier this morning in this thread (the one about obsession with the old firm) where you allude to the decision making powers being all the the old firm's favour. How does that work when several years ago the TV contracts were being negotiated and the two old firm clubs were all for staying with Sky, but the rest wanted to go for Setanta. The voting system of the then SPL of 9-3 meant the old firm could not influence anything without the support of others. The Setanta deal got pushed through for slightly more pennies whilst taking the game away from a far bigger TV audience. It subsequently collapsed and scottish football resorted to whoring itself out to the biggest bidder, which turned out to be the BBC, who were awarded the deal on something like 1/8 value of the sky deal. Thereafter this was the value more or less of every subsequent TV deal. The rest of the teams out with the old firm killed scottish football financially with that decision - FACT

[weegienative]

Double

[weegienative]

I would draw the line in a different place from you. That's fine.If you wish to live in a society whereby everyone has an absolute right to say or write whatever they like to, or about, anyone, that's ok. It's a legitimate view.It's not one I share however.

Finally something we agree on

I just find it madness that anyone can be jailed and have their livelihoods ruined because in someone's view, a song they sang at the football was offensive. No matter what team they support, it's a song, no one is being hurt by it.

[Monkey Tennis]

Can you please show me figures documenting these increases in attendance? Any figure I've seen has shown anything but. Hearts and Hibs being the obvious exception this past year.

I think it's fairly safe to assume I touch a nerve with you seeing as this isn't the first time you've resorted to name calling rather than engaging in a debate supported by fact rather than sweeping statements, despite it being me who is apparently the knuckle dragger.

Fact - attendances are down.

Fact - scottish football can't attract a sponsor other than for an old firm semi final.

Fact - the TV contract had to be renegotiated at a much lower rate and rangers matches in the lower leagues included in it (I'm sure the same would have happened had it been Celtic relegated)

Fact - the SPL more or less engaged in a hostile takeover of the SFL to form the SPFL as they knew their product was nothing without the old firm.

Fact - the quote by someone else (possibly you) earlier this morning in this thread (the one about obsession with the old firm) where you allude to the decision making powers being all the the old firm's favour. How does that work when several years ago the TV contracts were being negotiated and the two old firm clubs were all for staying with Sky, but the rest wanted to go for Setanta. The voting system of the then SPL of 9-3 meant the old firm could not influence anything without the support of others. The Setanta deal got pushed through for slightly more pennies whilst taking the game away from a far bigger TV audience. It subsequently collapsed and scottish football resorted to whoring itself out to the biggest bidder, which turned out to be the BBC, who were awarded the deal on something like 1/8 value of the sky deal. Thereafter this was the value more or less of every subsequent TV deal. The rest of the teams out with the old firm killed scottish football financially with that decision - FACT

The benefits you speak of were not of benefit to the game as a whole. Allowing others slightly more pennies, in ways that enabled the two big clubs to make many, many more pennies, was not of benefit to the game.

This is what enhanced sponsorship and TV deals resulted in, due to the unjust way in which prize money was distributed.

Football finances are not absolute, they're entirely relative.

Giving say, Aberdeen £2, but Celtic £10, is not better news for Aberdeen than giving both £1.

This is the logic that escapes you with your references to a drop in gross income.

Can you prove by the way that "attendances are down" in a way that has impacted financially to a significant degree on anyone but the OF?

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Nonsense. I do know one or two Rangers fans who are left-wing and atheist. Even a relative of an ex who is Catholic. Generally however, Rangers fans are extremely right-wing. As to Celtic - i know about the 'nice' public persona but they're generally more left-wing.

Here's what You Gov found out:

Check the Celtic one and look at "Personality"

https://yougov.co.uk/profiler#/Celtic_F_C/personality

Yougov also reckons that Jambos are dog people while Hibees go for Goldfish

[Monkey Tennis]

Finally something we agree on

I just find it madness that anyone can be jailed and have their livelihoods ruined because in someone's view, a song they sang at the football was offensive. No matter what team they support, it's a song, no one is being hurt by it.

Do you honestly believe that words can cause no "hurt"?

Extraordinary.

[SteveThePirate]

Rangers fans coming across as complete dicks on a football forum. I, for one, am shocked.

[weegienative]

The benefits you speak of were not of benefit to the game as a whole. Allowing others slightly more pennies, in ways that enabled the two big clubs to make many, many more pennies, was not of benefit to the game.

This is what enhanced sponsorship and TV deals resulted in, due to the unjust way in which prize money was distributed.

Football finances are not absolute, they're entirely relative.

Giving say, Aberdeen £2, but Celtic £10, is not better news for Aberdeen than giving both £1.

This is the logic that escapes you with your references to a drop in gross income.

Can you prove by the way that "attendances are down" in a way that has impacted financially to a significant degree on anyone but the OF?

I had a feeling you would take this angle. However the times when rangers and Celtic got the vast majority of the TV cash were long before the Setanta TV deal I'm referring to. The decision to split the TV money equally amongst all 12 clubs (and rightfully so in my opinion) was taken around the dick advocaat/ Martin oneill era IIRC.

I'm not debating that the previous system was unfair in the extreme, but that had been addressed.

What my point was that the club's jumped on the Setanta deal because it offered slightly more cash initially than the sky deal. The old firm wanted to stick with sky for the larger TV audience and security. An opinion which should have been listened to and the consequences of not doing so cost the spl clubs tens of millions (of which they all lost out on an equal share).

In the last couple of years I recall Aberdeen and Kilmarnock both having to have debts in the tens of millions written off in some form or other. This on the surface is a good thing, but doesn't address the issueb of how those debts were accrued in the first place and how they will probably be allowed to accrue again.

Then there is the growing financial problems at Motherwell who are also feeling the pinch.

I must admit I don't have the figures for all clubs but I would bet my mortgage on none of the clubs profit and loss accounts or balance sheets being better off since rangers were relegated. (Taking out player sales such as Ryan Gauld for example as he would have been sold regardless if rangers hadn't been relegated).

[weegienative]

Do you honestly believe that words can cause no "hurt"?Extraordinary.

They can cause hurt yes, potentially, so could me saying shut up to someone. Should it be considered a matter for the police? No.

As Stephen fry once said of someone saying they're offended "well so fucking what".

[WhiteRoseKillie]

I had a feeling you would take this angle. However the times when rangers and Celtic got the vast majority of the TV cash were long before the Setanta TV deal I'm referring to. The decision to split the TV money equally amongst all 12 clubs (and rightfully so in my opinion) was taken around the dick advocaat/ Martin oneill era IIRC.

I'm not debating that the previous system was unfair in the extreme, but that had been addressed.

What my point was that the club's jumped on the Setanta deal because it offered slightly more cash initially than the sky deal. The old firm wanted to stick with sky for the larger TV audience and security. An opinion which should have been listened to and the consequences of not doing so cost the spl clubs tens of millions (of which they all lost out on an equal share).

In the last couple of years I recall Aberdeen and Kilmarnock both having to have debts in the tens of millions written off in some form or other. This on the surface is a good thing, but doesn't address the issueb of how those debts were accrued in the first place and how they will probably be allowed to accrue again.

Then there is the growing financial problems at Motherwell who are also feeling the pinch.

I must admit I don't have the figures for all clubs but I would bet my mortgage on none of the clubs profit and loss accounts or balance sheets being better off since rangers were relegated. (Taking out player sales such as Ryan Gauld for example as he would have been sold regardless if rangers hadn't been relegated).

Please, tell me you're on the wind-up. I wouldn't want to think that someone this stupid was allowed unsupervised Internet access.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Do any genuine "Weegies" actually use the word "Weegie"?

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Weegienative has to be a Celtic fan on the wind-up. No one could be that stupid any way other than deliberately.

Charlie Hebdo. Fucking hell

[weegienative]

Please, tell me you're on the wind-up. I wouldn't want to think that someone this stupid was allowed unsupervised Internet access.

And again resorting to name calling when a response can't be found. It really is like being back at school in this forum.

[jimmy boo]

Racist name = check

Fan of Rangers = check

English team with questionable character (you've got to have a big big team but) = check

Summation; every chance this person is a glory hunting bigoted fuckwit.

Have a good time in the Championship next year

Now I am confused....is this a dig at me or are we laughing at someone else?

[weegienative]

Weegienative has to be a Celtic fan on the wind-up. No one could be that stupid any way other than deliberately.

Charlie Hebdo. Fucking hell

Dr Suart Waiton - Senior lecturer in sociology at the university of Abertay must be equally as stupid in that case?

"A Challenge to the Scottish Government: Are you Charlie?

Does the Scottish Government, infamous for their 'Offensive Behaviour at Football' law, support Charlie Hebdo?

Following events in Paris, the world has rightly come out in defence of free speech. There is no right not to be offended and those who use force to shut people up should be condemned.

Scottish First Minister states that we in Scotland stand ‘absolutely steadfast in our defence of the fundamental freedoms that we all cherish so much’ i.e. the freedom of speech.

The individuals involved in the killings in Paris were offended by a cartoon. Because of this they felt it was within their right to silence those who offended them by using force against the offenders.

And yet, in Scotland, force is used on a weekly basis to arrest people who do nothing more than offend other people: and yet this is called ‘tolerance’. The Offensive Behaviour Act makes being offensive at football matches a criminal offence. How does this square with the ‘steadfast defence’ of a ‘fundamental freedom’ to speak and to offend in Scotland?

Stuart Waiton

Take a Liberty Scotland"

[weegienative]

Do any genuine "Weegies" actually use the word "Weegie"?

I have no idea, I certainly don't on a day to day basis. The name was a piss take due to the abuse we take on this forum.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Dr Suart Waiton - Senior lecturer in sociology at the university of Abertay must be equally as stupid in that case?

"A Challenge to the Scottish Government: Are you Charlie?

Does the Scottish Government, infamous for their 'Offensive Behaviour at Football' law, support Charlie Hebdo?

Following events in Paris, the world has rightly come out in defence of free speech. There is no right not to be offended and those who use force to shut people up should be condemned.

Scottish First Minister states that we in Scotland stand ‘absolutely steadfast in our defence of the fundamental freedoms that we all cherish so much’ i.e. the freedom of speech.

The individuals involved in the killings in Paris were offended by a cartoon. Because of this they felt it was within their right to silence those who offended them by using force against the offenders.

And yet, in Scotland, force is used on a weekly basis to arrest people who do nothing more than offend other people: and yet this is called ‘tolerance’. The Offensive Behaviour Act makes being offensive at football matches a criminal offence. How does this square with the ‘steadfast defence’ of a ‘fundamental freedom’ to speak and to offend in Scotland?

Stuart Waiton

Take a Liberty Scotland"

You're really quite upset about all this aren't you?

Good.

[jimmy boo]

By asking me about dots you clearly are.

They were the subject of the post I was trying to explain to you and not something I was discussing myself.

Blah blah blah

[weegienative]

You're really quite upset about all this aren't you?

Good.

As I said, I don't attend senior football much at all other than with hospitality events through work, so from a selfish point of view, I really don't care.

Where you and I differ is I would hate to see a fan of any team getting locked up for singing a song at a football match. Yourself for example for singing upto your knees in Arab blood. (interesting to note yourself and hearts fans hate of rangers but willingness to copy their songs, but that's another issue)

You my small minded friend, would be happy to see this happening to rival fans, not considering the person being lifted is a human being with a family to support, who on any other day you could call a work colleague or friend. Therein lies the difference between you and I, I am able to take a step back and see football for the enjoyable hobby it is, you cannot.

[Monkey Tennis]

I had a feeling you would take this angle. However the times when rangers and Celtic got the vast majority of the TV cash were long before the Setanta TV deal I'm referring to. The decision to split the TV money equally amongst all 12 clubs (and rightfully so in my opinion) was taken around the dick advocaat/ Martin oneill era IIRC.

I'm not debating that the previous system was unfair in the extreme, but that had been addressed.

What my point was that the club's jumped on the Setanta deal because it offered slightly more cash initially than the sky deal. The old firm wanted to stick with sky for the larger TV audience and security. An opinion which should have been listened to and the consequences of not doing so cost the spl clubs tens of millions (of which they all lost out on an equal share).

In the last couple of years I recall Aberdeen and Kilmarnock both having to have debts in the tens of millions written off in some form or other. This on the surface is a good thing, but doesn't address the issueb of how those debts were accrued in the first place and how they will probably be allowed to accrue again.

Then there is the growing financial problems at Motherwell who are also feeling the pinch.

I must admit I don't have the figures for all clubs but I would bet my mortgage on none of the clubs profit and loss accounts or balance sheets being better off since rangers were relegated. (Taking out player sales such as Ryan Gauld for example as he would have been sold regardless if rangers hadn't been relegated).

You could have saved time by simply saying "Ok MT. You're right. I'm wrong."

The bit at the top about TV money being distributed equally does not, I'm afraid, merit a response.

You appear to be under the impression that I'd wish to defend the conduct of the SPL and its member clubs when it came to TV negotiations and the way the entire racket was conceived and stitched up. I've no desire to do this.