Does anyone know why a club can survive in the SFL but as soon as they reach the SPL they will go bust without the old firm and if they are relegated also run up huge debts.

Whats going wrong and why?

1,Is it the initial cost of having undersoil heating and 6,000 seats and being millions in debt before a ball is kicked.

2,Do clubs like to waste money.

3,The SPL, SFA and the SFL are they full of self importance and like to squander money.

4,I think clubs have a look at the books and their income reflects what they can spend here there and everywhere,the problem is that we actually play in the Old Firm League, where a huge amount of income comes from tv and sponsorship with the usual extras of Old firm home games. One half isnt here so whats next.

Maybe the entry requirements could be reexamined does it cost too much to arrive in the first place? Falkirk decided not to come up one year when 10,000 seats were required, our director wasnt sure when we were just about to win promotion for the first time.

1, Seating requirement could be relaxed more to reduce it to 5,000, if they want to put in more its up to them, the Scottish government could give an interest free loan to clubs to subsidize the cost ie, a 5 year interest free loan but the government own a stand until the debt is paid, if its not paid then interest is paid to the government after 5 years.

2, Do clubs waste money? perhaps? we had to make drastic cuts dropping to the 1st division and unfortunately may have to make them again.

3, I can well imagine the people running the sport are top heavy, earn too much and dont even mention their expenses.All their outgoings are deducted before the money is passed on to the clubs that its supposed to govern, you need to halve your outgoing without Rangers

4, The media and sponsors need to be reeducated, they are going to put themselves in a very dark place if they think that they can take advantage and sponsor/ televise the SPL on the cheap, Rangers fans haven't been deported to another planet they are still out there and still watching tv, just because they're not in the SPL it doesnt mean they have all died.

How many millions of people in Scotland watched the Euros and were Scotland one of the teams playing?

No, I rest my case TV and Sponsorship people. Have a wee think about what to do next, you could all be deemed heros.

In the here and now I would say clubs with a fan base under 4-5000 need to get rid of their high earners, or take wage cuts, it has to happen to all clubs and increase the league immediately, the 1st division clubs will be in a stronger healthier position than the lower SPL clubs so keep the 14 team to 16 team promise but do it now, it also removes the Pars v Dees problem which could run past the start of the season if there is an appeal.

In American Football they have a wage cap

That includes every body at the club, from the chief Exec down to the tea ladies

A rule very strongly enforced by league auditors

I know under EEC rules individual caping is not allowed, but total capping is. ( I think)

None of the above.

There is 1 very simple reason why this is the case. It is very difficult for SPL clubs to make decisions about expenditure because they have to guess the amount of their largest source of income - TV money.

There is such a large difference in income depending on where you finish on the table. However you have to make expenditure decisions (player contracts mostly) at the start of the season.

This whole thing would be easilly solved if the TV money was distributed evenly.

While each SPL club has 1 equal share, this equality disappears when it comes to voting and income splitting.

As I keep saying (I think February or March was the last time) the SPL clubs need to address this right now. In my opinion this needs to be addressed before league reconstruction. Why? Because it is a good short term fix whereas League reconstruction is going to take time.

I think 12th man makes a very good point. If a club is successful in Div 1 without the boost of OF gates and the SPL TV money then clearly they can produce a good performance on the park with a relatively limited budget. On that budget they can also be pretty competetive with the SPL clubs and results in cup matches demonstrate season after season.

Uncertainty about TV income has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The club getting promoted could chose to keep the same budget that it had whilst playing in the SFL. Playing in the SPL should boost their income through bigger gate receipts, more television income and bigger sponsorship income. If they are good enough to win the SFL there is no specific reason to assume that unless they increase their budget that they will drop straight down again, but if they do, they will do so with money in the bank.

The reason clubs often struggle financially in the SPL is that they stretch themselves too much in a bid to gain further success at the next level. What is required is a sense of realism from the Board and the fans of what it is sensible to expect. Some years things will come together on the pitch and some years they won't and that will often have less to do with the budget detail and more to do with the way players develop as individuals and gel as a team, whether they get injured, whether we get the tactics right and whether we get the luck of decisions going our way at crucial times etc. Bottom line for ICT is that if we budget on the basis that we have some God given right to be in the SPL as currently constitued, then we will struggle.

I think 12th man makes a very good point. If a club is successful in Div 1 without the boost of OF gates and the SPL TV money then clearly they can produce a good performance on the park with a relatively limited budget. On that budget they can also be pretty competetive with the SPL clubs and results in cup matches demonstrate season after season.

Uncertainty about TV income has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The club getting promoted could chose to keep the same budget that it had whilst playing in the SFL. Playing in the SPL should boost their income through bigger gate receipts, more television income and bigger sponsorship income. If they are good enough to win the SFL there is no specific reason to assume that unless they increase their budget that they will drop straight down again, but if they do, they will do so with money in the bank.

The reason clubs often struggle financially in the SPL is that they stretch themselves too much in a bid to gain further success at the next level. What is required is a sense of realism from the Board and the fans of what it is sensible to expect. Some years things will come together on the pitch and some years they won't and that will often have less to do with the budget detail and more to do with the way players develop as individuals and gel as a team, whether they get injured, whether we get the tactics right and whether we get the luck of decisions going our way at crucial times etc. Bottom line for ICT is that if we budget on the basis that we have some God given right to be in the SPL as currently constitued, then we will struggle.

It's a nice theory but I don't think it would apply in football land.

Imagine a situation where the ICT board decided to apply a Div 1 playing budget to their squad. As a result ICT is releagated but because they had applied a SFL1 budget, they actually make a profit of say 100 000 pounds for the year.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that fans wouldn't be asking for the board to be sacked because they wouldn't open the purse strings to save the season?

There are some fans on this site wondering why their haven't been further signings - even with the whole Rangers thing going on.

Every December there are posts speculating signings during the transfer window.

At the end of the day the Board need to make budgets based on the best available information to try to get the best results for the least amount of cash.

The point I'm making is that clubs overstretch themselves. I'm not saying promoted clubs should keep to an SFL budget, I'm just saying they could. It's a choice they make. Clubs get into financial difficulties because they don't get the balance right. Sometims they don't get the balance right for reasons that are not of their making but that is why there needs to be some reasonable caution in setting budgets and a focus on setting realistic expectations.

Wages can't be directly capped, but as the leagues are essentially "member organisations" they can do a lot in terms of placing conditions on membership.

They could therefore limit clubs spending on players by applying a "percentage of turnover" cap....along with appropriate controls to stop rich directors/shareholders/owners/fans etc from just passing money through the clubs to give a false turnover. If/when clubs turn a profit then they should be allowed to give players a bonus over and above the wages they received for the season.

This would go a long way towards restricting clubs from over stretching themselves without being so restrictive as to stifle progress. Essentially, clubs have to grow as a whole unit and off the park development would not be sacrificed to fund what's happening on the park.

None of the above.

There is 1 very simple reason why this is the case. It is very difficult for SPL clubs to make decisions about expenditure because they have to guess the amount of their largest source of income - TV money.

There is such a large difference in income depending on where you finish on the table. However you have to make expenditure decisions (player contracts mostly) at the start of the season.

This whole thing would be easilly solved if the TV money was distributed evenly.

While each SPL club has 1 equal share, this equality disappears when it comes to voting and income splitting.

As I keep saying (I think February or March was the last time) the SPL clubs need to address this right now. In my opinion this needs to be addressed before league reconstruction. Why? Because it is a good short term fix whereas League reconstruction is going to take time.

Excuse me for asking but how do you know for a fact that none of the above have any affect on a SPLs clubs' income?

1st div success is so different to SPL survival, as Dunfermline found out last season.

Teams require players who can perform at a higher standard and they cost more money, bigger crowds (old firm visits) require much more policing etc.

However as there has not been any club relegated and gone bust because either of the old firm have not been present in the SPL the question is hypothetical and worthy only of pure speculation.

Also, once in the SPL, the effect of pride in accomplishment beomes more pressing and the other influence of "keeping up with the Jones's " then comes into force.

It's rather like a compulsive gambler who has a wee bit of success--he keeps on spending because he loved the way it felt when he first won and feels sure it will come good again--and soon.

Also, once in the SPL, the effect of pride in accomplishment beomes more pressing and the other influence of "keeping up with the Jones's " then comes into force.

It's rather like a compulsive gambler who has a wee bit of success--he keeps on spending because he loved the way it felt when he first won and feels sure it will come good again--and soon.

Excellent analogy Mr Pimple your Central schooling has done you proud

A few wks ago there were a deluge of threads on this site complaining that we (ICT) are not performing well enough and that simply playing each year in the SPL for league survival shows a lack of ambition from fans, management and board. There is an general expectation that we should be a top 6 side and challenging more - how can this be achieved? Spending money on better players and higher wages, essentially ensuring every year we maximise our available buget to provide the best resource available on the pitch.

Going back to points I have made before, we are a provincial club and just being in the SPL is an achievement, survival year on year is all we should be expecting and if we can get good cup runs then thats what we should all look to. Being a yo-yo club isnt a bad thing IMO and until the rest of the fans lower expectations to realistic levels then the pressure on the board will continue to make us fly close to the financial edge. If the board dont invest more fans walk away as they cite a lack of quality and ambition, so investment is the only option to keep or try increase bums on seats (revenue).

Throwing money at football teams dosn't always work

Surely one of the reasons that we do not splash out on players is that we actually do watch the books. To me it is as much about how we play and how we entertain more than anything else. Surely if you go to a game and feel that the team has tried to play football, that they are playing for the shirt and have that "togetherness" factor that yer hard earned spondoolicks are more readily handed over.

Throwing money at football teams dosn't always work

Aye I remember some people doing that in the 70s. Usually they missed and they got thrown out the ground. I once saw Hugh Dallas with a nasty head cut though.

None of the above.

There is 1 very simple reason why this is the case. It is very difficult for SPL clubs to make decisions about expenditure because they have to guess the amount of their largest source of income - TV money.

There is such a large difference in income depending on where you finish on the table. However you have to make expenditure decisions (player contracts mostly) at the start of the season.

This whole thing would be easilly solved if the TV money was distributed evenly.

While each SPL club has 1 equal share, this equality disappears when it comes to voting and income splitting.

As I keep saying (I think February or March was the last time) the SPL clubs need to address this right now. In my opinion this needs to be addressed before league reconstruction. Why? Because it is a good short term fix whereas League reconstruction is going to take time.

Excuse me for asking but how do you know for a fact that none of the above have any affect on a SPLs clubs' income?

Fair point. If this was a horse race it would be called as follows:

"As they reach the winning post it's TV income first then 15 lengths to all the other runners"

Edited to correct shocking spelling

Edited July 16, 201213 yr by Gabby