Leaderboard

The following wee dig on County's wikipedia entry has survived for a few days now. "Founded in 1929, they will play in the 2012/13 Scottish Premier League after winning promotion as champions of then First Division, confirming their status as the most successful football club north of Inverness."

Bear in mind that the arrival of Ross County at least guarantees two home sellout crowds a season - so, in terms of gate receipts, we wouldn't necessarily take a hit in the same way other clubs would. For what it's worth, I don't just want a liquidated Rangers demoted to division 3, I want them to have to go through the ignominy of reapplying against Spartans, Cove Rangers etc...mostly for the comedy value :lol:

rory mcallister got 2 for peterhead mcbain got the other in their 3-0 win

When did we sign Leigh Griffiths?

Oh it's Russell Dunro. Or is it that other guy Grant Muncan?

Seen nothing to back up the "3 old firm games" part of the current TV contract, but even if it does exist then any Rangers NewCo would not be one of the Old Firm and they could rip up the contract anyway. Nowhere have I seen anything other than speculation about SKY/ESPN pulling out totally if Rangers are not in the SPL. Turnover Figures as per accounts registered with Companies House 2011 - 3.5 Million 2010 - 2.0 Million 2009 - 3.6 Million 2008 - 3.4 Million Other than our year in Div1, turnover looks to be fairly steady. None of the accounts shows a breakdown which gives income from TV, although I think your figure would probably be a fairly decent stab at it. Pure speculation. Exactly the kind of scaremongering that far too many people are buying in to without looking objectively at all the possible scenarios. I'm not suggesting Scottish Football would thrive (financially) without a Rangers (or Celtic)...certainly not short term. What I am saying is that the game is already heading for bust and the current setup is driving people away. You've admitted that yourself above where you say that crowds and income are falling. To suggest that we allow one team to have done what they did and be allowed to continue as they were in order to save the situation is complete folly. We all agree that change is needed....but allowing a NewCo Rangers immediate access back to where they were/are will change nothing. The pie is going to be significantly smaller whatever way you look at it. Scottish Football is already a joke and if we don't take a stand in order to try and reverse the trend then not only will we have lost TV deals & Sponsors, but we'll have lost so many fans that we'll end up in a situation where the game will all but die with no hope of breathing life back in to it. Stop feeding on the corporate and political BS, take a look around you at what the people in the stands are saying....you can have all the TV & Sponsorship deals in the world, but with no fans you have no football. My whole argument is based on not selling out your soul in the hope of a few scraps from the devils table....which is what has got us in to the mess we are in at the moment. The easy option is to just wave a Rangers NewCo in to place. We need to start looking beyond the end of our noses to the long term future of the game. I want to be attending ICT matches in another 40 years time, not worrying if we'll even have them in another 4. It would be nice if that was in the top league in Scotland, but not at any cost. Sort thing out now and let teams find their natural level....if that means part-time football for some and oblivion for others, then so be it. Better that than a long painful drawn out saga where all dignity goes out the window as we beg shamelessly to and feed from the proceeds of Scotland's biggest shame. And submitting a Rangers Newco straight in to the league means exactly the same thing....you just don't have any hope of changing it any time soon. What you are arguing for is a situation where the rest of the SPL places it's future in the hands of a company that has just proven (monumentally) that they can't even look after themselves....what makes anyone think that they will do anything going forward that will be of benefit to anyone else? Would it not be better to face 5 years of difficulty with your destiny in your own hands instead of placing it in the hands of a company that has just proven (monumentally) that they can't even look after themselves....what makes anyone think that they will do anything going forward that will be of benefit to anyone else? We have Independent SPL Directors....they are the ones telling us to bend over and lube up in preparation for the Rangers NewCo.

Kinda torn on this one ....... and its a question of needs / wants Scottish football, or more specifically fans of smaller teams, perhaps don't want Rangers (or Celtic for that matter) but in the current structure we do actually need them in my opinion. We dont need them for the bigotry, we dont need them for the way they monopolise the revenue, and we dont need them for many other reasons ... but in the current structure, we do need them to keep at least some money rolling in. without that money, some teams would be in deep **** and ours could be one of them. I didnt realise it when I posted in another thread what seems like it months ago, but someone more recently pointed out that the TV deal in place can be voided if there are not at least 3 televised OF derbies a season. Like it or not, that TV deal brings in the bulk of the SPL's cash, and despite the OF siphoning off a disproportionate amount of it by toploading the percentages for winners and runners up in the league, it is still worth hundreds of thousands of pounds a year even to the bottom team. What team can honestly say it can withstand the loss of a six figure sum until a new deal is in place without the OF, especially when attendances are dwindling and costs are rising .... I have no doubt that Scottish football could bounce back after the loss of one or both of the OF .... do the "cold turkey" in CaleyD parlance ... and we would likely be leaner, stronger, and perhaps even more youth focused as a result but are we prepared for the consequences of that if ICT were one of the ones who became a casualty of all this ?

I agree that this is how it will be portrayed. And as per my posts above, I stick to my opinion that the course of action will be a complete cluster$#$% because we have three governing bodies instead of one. They will start at the bottom. the bottom of the SPL, a single entity league with only a single division. The SFL make their own rules and the only real interplay between them is that its 1 down 1 up for promotion relegation. How the SPL would replace a liquidated team has never been defined, at least not publicly. The only example is the Airdrie situation and that too is a bit of a cluster____ with liquidation (of Airdrieonians), administration and takeover (of Clydebank) all involved and ultimately the old Airdrie becoming the new Airdrie Utd (newco) and playing in the division of the team they bought out .... very messy. and I will be pro-Rangers or anti-Celtic because of the point I am arguing ... but like you, I couldnt care less !! I make my point not for Rangers, but for consistency. On this we are totally agreed. Scotty For me the separation between SPL and SFL is solely administrative. The top club from the SFL gains entrance to the SPL provided they meet the ever changing criteria. This is the only obstacle to entrance. This promotion has always been an integral part of our game. The organisations, custom and practice are, for me, inextricably linked. Therefore I would argue that anyone found in breach, of a serious enough nature, has been placed in the bottom teir of our senior national football structure. Rangers should be no different.

No...they don't. I have seen absolutely no quantifiable evidence whatsoever that shows that statement to be true....it just seems to be the more that someone says it, the more they seem to believe it. You don't keep feeding drugs to an addict just because they think they need it, and if Scottish Football needs a few years of cold turkey to realise just how bad the situation was and how they can have a better life without it, then so be it.

Also, it has taken County 82 years to reach the SPL. Caley Thistle did it in 10 years. :fingers:

A fact (derived from the Latin factum) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments. In philososphy, the concept fact is considered in epistemology and ontology. Questions of objectivity and truth are closely associated with questions of fact. A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, a state of affairs. Facts may be understood as that which makes a true sentence true. Facts may also be understood as those things to which a true sentence refers. The statement "Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system" is about the fact Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system. Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric, in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation." Co-incidentally - I am never wrong, I once actually thought that I was wrong but it turned out that I was mistaken.