Zen Archer (Raconteur) Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I suppose Michael gammon (whoever he is) has a point about the size of teams and fan bases etc but I don't agree with telling the smaller teams to do one. Far too often the 'larger' teams are more agenda driven and put their own interests first, while the wee/er clubs sometimes can be more pragmatic. I reckon the budgie will get voted in and Robertson will be told to do one. It seems to have been the same folk shifting between SPL/sflp and SFA for years now, maybe a shake up is needed. Edit for spacing problems Some things you just can't fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doink Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Dave King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The Man. The Myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiddy Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Are they deid yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Are they deid yet? Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 They are one of 42 clubs in the SPFL so should have a say, but there should be no discrimination between the big clubs like Rangers and Celtic or the smaller ones like Cowdenbeath or Queen of the South who have also won a 3rd-tier title when it comes to decisions that effect all clubs. However don't Rangers still have a year to go before they get a vote?. I'm all for democracy in "real life", but this is Scottish football and to say teams such as Cowdenbeath should have as much a say as Rangers on how Scottish football is run is a bit daft. I can just about deal with the fact nations such as San Marino have as much of a say of where a World Cup will be as a Spain or a Brazil but domestic club football is very different. Maximising profit is paramount and the reality is Cowdenbeath, East Fife etc don't bring in the money. And it's all very well saying "Why should Rangers have more of a say when Queen of the South and Cowdenbeath have also won the third tier divsion" but it's completely missing the point. It's all about the money not the trophies when it comes to making business decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1320Lichtie Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I'm all for democracy in "real life", but this is Scottish football and to say teams such as Cowdenbeath should have as much a say as Rangers on how Scottish football is run is a bit daft. . I hope you're not being serious If you are, well then you're a c**t Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I'm all for democracy in "real life", but this is Scottish football and to say teams such as Cowdenbeath should have as much a say as Rangers on how Scottish football is run is a bit daft. I can just about deal with the fact nations such as San Marino have as much of a say of where a World Cup will be as a Spain or a Brazil but domestic club football is very different. Maximising profit is paramount and the reality is Cowdenbeath, East Fife etc don't bring in the money. And it's all very well saying "Why should Rangers have more of a say when Queen of the South and Cowdenbeath have also won the third tier divsion" but it's completely missing the point. It's all about the money not the trophies when it comes to making business decisions. With the greatest of respect, there is so much wrong with your post. Absolute nonsense from start to finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 With the greatest of respect, there is so much wrong with your post. Absolute nonsense from start to finish. Okay Dave, that's your opinion and I can respect that. Could you maybe explain why you disagree though? Or did you just want to say you disagreed without offering any sort of counter argument?..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I'm all for democracy in "real life", but this is Scottish football and to say teams such as Cowdenbeath should have as much a say as Rangers on how Scottish football is run is a bit daft. I can just about deal with the fact nations such as San Marino have as much of a say of where a World Cup will be as a Spain or a Brazil but domestic club football is very different. Maximising profit is paramount and the reality is Cowdenbeath, East Fife etc don't bring in the money. And it's all very well saying "Why should Rangers have more of a say when Queen of the South and Cowdenbeath have also won the third tier divsion" but it's completely missing the point. It's all about the money not the trophies when it comes to making business decisions. You really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusing other teams of not being a financial success. If it's down to money, Rangers don't have any. They don't have sustainable income-vs-expenditure and have shown repeatedly they can't be trusted with money. A wee club which lives within its means deserves far more of a say in the running of the game than a basket-case institution that continually spends money it doesn't have in pursuit of impossible dreams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepundit Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 You really don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusing other teams of not being a financial success. If it's down to money, Rangers don't have any. They don't have sustainable income-vs-expenditure and have shown repeatedly they can't be trusted with money. A wee club which lives within its means deserves far more of a say in the running of the game than a basket-case institution that continually spends money it doesn't have in pursuit of impossible dreams. I understand the point you are making but I don't think Rangers operating at a loss is relevant to the conversation. The club itself is responsible (along with Celtic) for Scottish football's ability to get what it does from TV and sponsorship deals and the Rangers fans put a lot of cash into the game. To say they deserve no more of a say than a Arbroath or a Partick Thistle for example is irrational in my opinion. In fact, you're claiming those small clubs deserve MORE of a say than Rangers so your disagreement is not even about democracy but more about the fact those clubs don't make a loss. Well, let them be on the telly every weekend then. Let their fans subsidise other clubs. Let their chairman go and boast to potential sponsors about how one man and a dog goes to their games. What good will that do for Scottish football? Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave.j Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I understand the point you are making but I don't think Rangers operating at a loss is relevant to the conversation. The club itself is responsible (along with Celtic) for Scottish football's ability to get what it does from TV and sponsorship deals and the Rangers fans put a lot of cash into the game. To say they deserve no more of a say than a Arbroath or a Partick Thistle for example is irrational in my opinion. In fact, you're claiming those small clubs deserve MORE of a say than Rangers so your disagreement is not even about democracy but more about the fact those clubs don't make a loss. Well, let them be on the telly every weekend then. Let their fans subsidise other clubs. Let their chairman go and boast to potential sponsors about how one man and a dog goes to their games. What good will that do for Scottish football? Exactly! I'll take some time tomorrow when I'm at a keyboard, instead of on my phone. But please keep posting this pish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarkko Wiss Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Let their fans subsidise other clubs. f**k me! Are you goons still peddling that utter tripe? Nobody went tits-up other than Rangers, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itzdrk Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Quite simply should be 42 clubs with 1 vote each Celtic are no more important than East Stirlingshire, bigger yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Quite obviously you know very little about business decisions. OK Mr Branson..... Shite beard by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Sake. Has Snafu had monkey gland? The rate the diddies are posting at has me looking at a pacemaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I understand the point you are making but I don't think Rangers operating at a loss is relevant to the conversation. The club itself is responsible (along with Celtic) for Scottish football's ability to get what it does from TV and sponsorship deals and the Rangers fans put a lot of cash into the game. To say they deserve no more of a say than a Arbroath or a Partick Thistle for example is irrational in my opinion. In fact, you're claiming those small clubs deserve MORE of a say than Rangers so your disagreement is not even about democracy but more about the fact those clubs don't make a loss. Well, let them be on the telly every weekend then. Let their fans subsidise other clubs. Let their chairman go and boast to potential sponsors about how one man and a dog goes to their games. What good will that do for Scottish football? Exactly! Dear God Don't hold back ffs ?, go for it. What an insult and slap in the face to all the other fans and their clubs who make up the leagues and divisions. The TV money is shit and just about offers a few measly thousand to those in the lowest division and they can probably survive and prosper without it. I'd say you are well overstepping yourself TP by pissing over the clubs and it's fans who give your club it's life blood. And what do Rangers represent in the modern game and era ? badly run and in debt with no way of ever even a sniff of a profit unless someone throws money at with virtually no chance of ever seeing a penny back. If this is the sort of representation you put forward you'd might as well be the Cockwomble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I'd say you are well overstepping yourself TP by pissing over the clubs and it's fans who give your club it's life blood. The grey and green hordes still struggle with English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 The grey and green hordes still struggle with English. It's your problem not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paramour Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I understand the point you are making but I don't think Rangers operating at a loss is relevant to the conversation. The club itself is responsible (along with Celtic) for Scottish football's ability to get what it does from TV and sponsorship deals and the Rangers fans put a lot of cash into the game. To say they deserve no more of a say than a Arbroath or a Partick Thistle for example is irrational in my opinion. In fact, you're claiming those small clubs deserve MORE of a say than Rangers so your disagreement is not even about democracy but more about the fact those clubs don't make a loss. Well, let them be on the telly every weekend then. Let their fans subsidise other clubs. Let their chairman go and boast to potential sponsors about how one man and a dog goes to their games. What good will that do for Scottish football? Exactly! Utterly, entirely ridiculous, and if this is your view on how a league should operate then hell mend you. The working man's ballet, as football was long ago once known and heralded, is based on the operation of eleven men facing eleven men on a patch of grass. It has, effectively, nothing to do with the earning capacity, monetary quantums or box-office potential of the clubs or company they represent. That these are the only things many fans now discuss demonstrates the general corruption that has entered the sport. So, if you're trying to appoint Celtic and your long-dead, cheating, and equally bigoted club as arbitrators in chief of the game in Scotland you're missing the very point of the game from the get go. Every member of a league should have a representative say in how it is run, and this should not be moderated as a result of their income base. That you believe it should be otherwise is demonstrative of the supremacist culture of Rangers and their cartel partners in green and white (although I am heartened by the refution of your points by members of that support). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.