sonsanorak Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Rangers dont want their suffering fans to fork out for anotger championship season ticket, and potentially three home games. The other clubs in the league denied the 25%offer when it was made, those clubs now must dictate what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Ok fair point but I think you know what i meant! Fact is that Rangers and others are breaking the rules for their own agenda - given where your club has been recently you would think that they might just have learned a few lessons ...........obviously not. The irony of this free entry offer is that of all the teams in theplay off Rangers are the least able to afford the gesture but they are still acting as though "money is no object". Chances are the crowd will be 40,000+ at Ibrox so the other clubs will be getting 50% of 15,000+.. tbh i hope we charge the 15000+ £1 ea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Whatever happens this season clearly the issue has to be sorted for next season - by a rule change if necessary - because according to the media the SFA contribution stops after this season. Part of introducing the playoff and doubling the parachutes was the payoff that gate receipts would contribute to those parachutes, instead of acting as a drain on the communal fund (and therefore everyone else). Parachute payments previously totalled a maximum £375k per year. Now they can total a maximum £1.5M per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Whatever happens this season clearly the issue has to be sorted for next season - by a rule change if necessary - because according to the media the SFA contribution stops after this season. Part of introducing the playoff and doubling the parachutes was the payoff that gate receipts would contribute to those parachutes, instead of acting as a drain on the communal fund (and therefore everyone else). Parachute payments previously totalled a maximum £375k per year. Now they can total a maximum £1.5M per year. Given that there are two "premiership teams in exile" involved this season and Motherwell are one of the bigger options for 11th the aggregate attendance even discounting season ticket freebies is still going to be a bumper year so the fact that the SPFL have made an arse of this needn't be that big a deal. If they find themselves trying to find that money from a postseason involving Ross County, Queen of the South, Raith and Saint Johnstone then they'll have no margin for error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Whatever happens this season clearly the issue has to be sorted for next season - by a rule change if necessary - because according to the media the SFA contribution stops after this season. Part of introducing the playoff and doubling the parachutes was the payoff that gate receipts would contribute to those parachutes, instead of acting as a drain on the communal fund (and therefore everyone else). Parachute payments previously totalled a maximum £375k per year. Now they can total a maximum £1.5M per year. Is there any guarantee that the play-offs will continue after the SFA contribution stops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Given that there are two "premiership teams in exile" involved this season and Motherwell are one of the bigger options for 11th the aggregate attendance even discounting season ticket freebies is still going to be a bumper year so the fact that the SPFL have made an arse of this needn't be that big a deal. If they find themselves trying to find that money from a postseason involving Ross County, Queen of the South, Raith and Saint Johnstone then they'll have no margin for error. In part that's why it is disappointing they let Hibs not pay-up in full last season, leaving the door to maybe missing a shed-load this season. You could argue that money should be being 'banked' in these seasons to off-set fallow seasons to come. Is there any guarantee that the play-offs will continue after the SFA contribution stops? Prettymuch. It's in the rulebook and not conditional on an external contribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Chances are the crowd will be 40,000+ at Ibrox so the other clubs will be getting 50% of 15,000+.. tbh i hope we charge the 15000+ £1 ea. Leaving aside obvious jokes about what can be purchased for £1 these days, why do you feel this way? Is the notion of wealth generated by the game, being spread around a little, really so distasteful? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Flash Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 In part that's why it is disappointing they let Hibs not pay-up in full last season, leaving the door to maybe missing a shed-load this season. You could argue that money should be being 'banked' in these seasons to off-set fallow seasons to come. Prettymuch. It's in the rulebook and not conditional on an external contribution. According to clause 61.2 of the SPFL Articles only the Premiership clubs are allowed to vote on changes to the Premiership/ Championship play-offs. I'm not sure if that means they could decide to stop having them completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 The SPFL could just employ a completely bent referee for the final playoff game to ensure that they don't need to find the second parachute payment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fotbawmad Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 I'm gonna put my neck on the line and say Motherwell will beat whoever emerges winner of the Championship play off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qos_75 Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 Leaving aside obvious jokes about what can be purchased for £1 these days, why do you feel this way?Is the notion of wealth generated by the game, being spread around a little, really so distasteful? I suppose you pay for what you get. Imagine the uproar if their fans paid full price to be pumped at the first hurdle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted April 30, 2015 Share Posted April 30, 2015 If a season ticket should entitle supporters to more than 18 games then Anne budge owes me money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowdenConvert Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 There's no doubt that it favours the top flight club, which is why it was agreed to, after many years of the shop being as closed as possible.It's not ideal, but it's as good as we were going to get and as I said, there are at least things in place to make it hard for the side finishing effectively in mid-table, things that don't exist in the other divisions.Favoured Hibs last season right enough. How did that work out for them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Distant Doonhamer Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Favoured Hibs last season right enough. How did that work out for them? It did favour them. The fact that their bottle crashed and that a very decent Hamilton side took advantage doesn`t change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 If a season ticket should entitle supporters to more than 18 games then Anne budge owes me money. Every club in the 3 lower leagues bases their ST prices on 18 matches. What a load of shit talk from Rangers about doing it for the fans. They're relying on an intimidating Ibrox to see them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 The SPFL could just employ a completely bent referee for the final playoff game to ensure that they don't need to find the second parachute payment Where would Scottish football find such a character? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Leaving aside obvious jokes about what can be purchased for £1 these days, why do you feel this way? Is the notion of wealth generated by the game, being spread around a little, really so distasteful? I am all for spreading the wealth around and you will know I said from day 1 Rangers going into SFL 3 would benefit the clubs in the lower leagues financially and would give the lower leagues more exposure. What I find distasteful is the SPFL taking 50% of the gate BEFORE costs!!! Rangers are generating enough wealth for others with the TV money being paid and the 15,000+ paying customers at each of the games they play or game...depending on how well we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 Rangers are generating enough wealth for others with the TV money being paid and the 15,000+ paying customers at each of the games they play or game...depending on how well we do. On the other hand, Rangers wouldn't be generating any wealth at all if you weren't in the league and playing other teams - you can't generate any wealth without opponents, so as always in TV £££ discussions let's remember it's a 2-way thing. As I also recall, you're so 'box office' the SPFL is having to give BT 'cashback' for going to the trouble of covering your games? What I find distasteful is the SPFL taking 50% of the gate BEFORE costs!!! So you would be OK with the 50% if it was after reasonable costs? Personally I'd agree with that, but it doesn't seem the issue has been revolving around this. It's probably a minor aside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 On the other hand, Rangers wouldn't be generating any wealth at all if you weren't in the league and playing other teams - you can't generate any wealth without opponents, so as always in TV £££ discussions let's remember it's a 2-way thing. As I also recall, you're so 'box office' the SPFL is having to give BT 'cashback' for going to the trouble of covering your games? So you would be OK with the 50% if it was after reasonable costs? Personally I'd agree with that, but it doesn't seem the issue has been revolving around this. It's probably a minor aside. This is Rangers we are speaking about, have you seen their accounts. If it is 50% after costs, they will be looking for money from the SPFL rather than contributing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No8. Posted May 1, 2015 Share Posted May 1, 2015 On the other hand, Rangers wouldn't be generating any wealth at all if you weren't in the league and playing other teams - you can't generate any wealth without opponents, so as always in TV £££ discussions let's remember it's a 2-way thing. As I also recall, you're so 'box office' the SPFL is having to give BT 'cashback' for going to the trouble of covering your games? So you would be OK with the 50% if it was after reasonable costs? Personally I'd agree with that, but it doesn't seem the issue has been revolving around this. It's probably a minor aside. We are so box office BT are willing to pay £500,000 for the play offs. That is £500,000 the SPFL. Would not have received without Rangers involvement. I am just repeating myself but the SPFL will be getting more from Rangers paying customers than any of the other clubs. Season tickets are for the league season and the play offs are part of the lower leagues season. I prefer the honesty of Aussiedee who hates all things Rangers. At least he is honest about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.