Gabby

A league of mostly part-time teams then? Yes, at first. However with strong leadership at the governing body there is opportunity here.

Caley D as I have explained before, the product does not necessarlily become less valuable (however I would strongly argue that it does especially interms of audience numbers for TV). But if I use your assumption and say the Broadcast deal is the same value then that sum is divided into more pieces. In the current structure the team finishing 1 and 2 revcieve a disproportionatly large amount of that pool leaving the rest of the league substantially worse off. This is before you even consider that increased costs of team stepping up to the SPL in terms of players, policing etc. This is very much a case of more teams mean less for everyone.

A league of mostly part-time teams then? Spot on Yngwie. The time to look at long term big picture stuff is when you house is in order. In these circumstances high standard short and medium term plans are required to ensure there is a long term. At least this should put an end to the crazy 16 team league idea. It wasn't affordable before and it now lies very much in the long, long, long term plans. This is becasue not of the possible reduction in TV cash but the inevitable reduction in TV cash.

The first thing I will say is hear me out. When I say dissolve, I mean restructure but there wasn't enough room in the title. Let there be no mistake, newco Rangers will be in the SPL - money always wins over ethics in football. That's why Qatar will host the World Cup - it's how football works. So let;s run with this because for the first time the other SPL members have some real bargaining power and they should exercise it. At the end of the day while Chairpersons of other clubs are saying that Newco FC can't play in the SPL, the Chief Financial Officer of each club is saying something different. So for the first time in SPL history, the other 10 clubs have real power and they should exercise it. First and foremost the revenue sharing inequity must be fixed. The new entity would need to assess the total amount that would be paid to member clubs, for the sake of my argument, let's call this total amount Member Grants. 70% of this should be paid to members at the start of the season. Each member should get an equal amount of this pool. 30% of this should be paid as prize money according to where you finish on the ladder. Secondly, this is an opportunity to give the other clubs more say in the future in the league. Instead of 11 out of 12 member votes to change the rules, change it to 9. Therefore a two thirds majority is required. This is a massive opportunity - please use it. Discuss

The only way that would work is if a league had a fixed salary cap. And the only way if would be effective is if every football league has a salary cap. Salary caps or wage limits are incompatible with leagues that have relegation because teams will risk breaking the cap to avoid relegation. Wage limitation is also very easy to get around by clubs. instead of paying players directly, they would have sponsors or other third parties make payments for them. It would create more problems than it solves. I have seen articles suggesting wages be limited to a percentage of turnover. while this is good in theory it just perpetuates the strength of wealthy clubs. We have salary caps for all professional sports in Oz and the experience has been that they are very difficult to police. Every incident of serious breaches have been uncovered by excellent investigative journalists rather than the governing bodies of the sport. I will stick my neck out with a prediction. In the next 10 years wages growth in football will be negative. There are just too many clubs in the major leagues that are hanging on by a thread. There only needs to be a hiccup with TV money and the whole house of cards comes down and it will be the Spanish or Italian league that goes down first.

It's not just that though, is it? On top of needing defenders and forwards, we also need midfielders who can dictate a game. Where was our midfield against Dundee Utd? It's a whole damn team we need, not just a few players. In defending our midfield they spent the entire game watching the ball sail over there heads, the only opportunity they had to touch the ball was by tackling opponents. ESPN interviewed TB about two thirds through the first half and I was concerned that he was very happy with the way we were playing. I'm not entirely sure what he was watching.

HT: 0:0 FT: 2:1 1st scorer us: Ross 1st scorer them: Daly Crowd: 4721

HT: 0:0 FT: 1:2 1st scorer us: Hayes 1st scorer them: Healy Crowd: 5772

That's gold!

I was going to mention Danny Invincible or Eric Partaluu as the Aussies.

I have spend the whole day grumping over stupid, little things. There is nothing like a brave, generous child to put things in perspective. Thank you Marc and well done mate.

HT: 0:0 FT: 1:1 1st scorer us: Foran 1st scorer them: Barrowman Crowd: 3272

Brilliant, we will get Matty McKay back in Brisbane for free. He was too good for Rangers anyway.

When Criag Whyte took over a Rangers he agreed to clear the known debt of 18 million pounds. At the point he became a secured creditor of Rangers. As a secured debtor his 18m is safe. It will be interesting to see where all the missing money is. There is no logical reason for Rangers not to pay this years VAT etc especially since (by his own reckoning) is cost 4.5 m pounds to run Rangers each month and a history of Rangers revenue (even conservativley measured) would easilly exceed this. If I was a suspicious person, I would think that the mortgaging of future season ticket sales would provide the liquidity to immediatly secure his original 18m pound investment. If I was a really suspicious person I would think he was preparing for asset stripping.

HT: 0:0 FT: 2:1 1st scorer us: Hayes 1st scorer them: Stokes Crowd: 45672

Sorry Caley D I think you misunderstood. I meant that the total value of the TV cash would be 10% of of the current TV deal. In other words ICT may receive a larger proportion of a much smaller pie. The net result would be reduced TV cash for all clubs with the possible exception of Celtic. In saying that, while there would be some short term pain, I think it would result in a much better, competitive league in the long term. Nah, I understood, was just being a little facetious because the suggestion that an SPL without a dominant Rangers (and Celtic) would be worth 10% of it's current value is a tad ridiculous. Ok 10% is probably a bit low, I concede. However they would be lucky to get 40% of the existing contract even taking into consideration the small current deal.

Here is a really good article that explain this situation: http://www.heraldsco...l-club.16648763 And here is an even better article: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/the-flawed-logic-of-the-scottish-medias-stance-on-rangers-troubles/

Must admit, while watching the game on Setanta I thought me NPL crowd prediction was about 1000 to high.

Sorry Caley D I think you misunderstood. I meant that the total value of the TV cash would be 10% of of the current TV deal. In other words ICT may receive a larger proportion of a much smaller pie. The net result would be reduced TV cash for all clubs with the possible exception of Celtic. In saying that, while there would be some short term pain, I think it would result in a much better, competitive league in the long term.

Are you Craig Whyte is disguise? This makes no business sense whatsoever. Say a club currently gets 4000 fans a games at say 20 pounds per head, plus TV cash. Then Rangers go bust and clubs are forced to survive on say 10% of the TV money (if they can even attract a TV deal). Club announces price reduction to attract fans - if the club halves the price of tickets, the club would need 8000 fans a game to get the same game day income. Also players would escape to the English Conference istead of League One for better pay. In other words, it would be on the same level as the Irish League.

I agree. Does the SPL believe that Rangers are too big to let fail? The money men at the SPL would be aghast at the loss of TV cash that would result should Rangers go bust. Dundee, Livi, Third Lanark and Gretna were allowed to die. However Rangers are a huge source of income for the SPL and I think the SPL will do everything in their power (and quite a few things outside of their power) to ensure either Rangers survival or the fast resurection of Rangers Mark II On the other side of the coin, if Rangers and Hearts both go bust then the SPL have the 10 team comp they have been pressing for. The SPL will not allow Rangers to disappear....unfortunatley.

HT: 0:0 FT: 1:2 1st scorer us: Hayes 1st scorer them: Stokes Crowd: 6772

They were in the same position last season, but fixture congestion, a good cup run and injuries were hurdles they couldn't overcome.

HT: 0:0 FT: 1:0 1st scorer us: Tade 1st scorer them: Imre Crowd: 3872

HT: 0:0 FT: 1:0 1st scorer us: McKay 1st scorer them: Skacel Crowd: 4172