Gabby

I rarley agree with Craig Burley but he has nailed this - 100% correct. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/reconstruction-proposals-should-be-torn-up-1531712

My opinion is that the plans offered for league construction are a contrived way to add comptitiveness and entertainment value to football. It won't. If the powes that be were really serious about making the leagues (particularly the top division) more competitive it could be done very easily. Leave the actual league structure as it is except for adding a play off for relegation/promotion. Take all the money generated by the SPL, subtract the amount for parachute payments, subtract a minimal amount for prize money according to your finishing place and then divide the remaining amount equally between the clubs in the SPL. However Celtic (and Rangers if they are allowed to vote) won't vote for this because the receive the bulk of the cash. I see theat Celtic have generously given up 300 000 pounds for the current plan. It's a drop in the ocean. In my opinion your reward for finishing first is a trophy and the financial rewards of European football. It is impossible to have a competitive league when 10 of the 12 (actually 11 of the 12 these days) are not given the chance to compete. They are deliberatly finacially hobbled to prevent comptitiveness. so instead of standing up for the little guys (the majority of their members) the SFA/SPL/SFL have decided to focus on the race for the bottom.

So what you are saying is the difference between a good idea and a bad idea is a communication/marketing plan?

He won't have any problems adjusting to the local climate.

Yes, they did. I remember this distinctly too. I also remember there was some fuss about it being against the rules with some even speculating a points deduction for breaching the rules.

The most common line on the BBC live text commentary is " (insert player here) is fouled by Ian Black."

Bugger - Mrs Gabby left inverness yesterday

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

I don't think this is the case because: 1. If New Rangers are a continuation of old Rangers then they would enter the comp in Round 4 because they finished 2nd in the SPL/ 2. If they are a new club, then they are ineligible for the competition because they were not SFA members at the time of the draw and it is unlikey they will be full members of the SFA in time for the commencement of the competition. What's the bet the Appeals Tribunal determines the penalty as suspension or explusion from the Cup. A competition they would not be eligible for anyway.

I said in my blog back in April the Rangers will be in the SPL. I stand by that prediction?

It illustrates how appallingly some people in Scottish football behave but it doesn't shed light on the what Kenny Cameron's role is in all this. If it was the rejection of this kind of dictatorial stich up that our Chairman was so incensed with SFL chairmen for rejecting, then it would suggest he is involved in the stitch up himself and has a lot of questions to answer. Not convinced he was involved, but it would be interesting to know when he was aware of it.

"However, Gilmour did say 5 clubs could be in administration by end of August. I fail to see how these "reforms", reforms that were never actually planned on, or expected, to have been "rejected" have a bearing suddenly, as in August suddenly..." Exactly! So the question needs to be asked - which income stream, that is usually generated prior to August, has been compromised? And by how much. To me, it seems that Clubs have been hit by reduced levels of Season Tickets while the Rangers situation played out. Statements were made about integrity and listening to fans however there is a hint of a stench about the Rangers to SFL1 push and the fans are rightly suspicious. I always find that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.............it's a duck.

I would think that 2 home games against County should cover the spread.

It may have been extended in terms of it's meaning but I feel more and more these days that clubs are all about getting as much money from TV deals etc. rather than getting fans through the door which, ultimately, should be one of the main sources of income for a club. The talk is all about TV deals and not much to do with supporters. As I say, perhaps an exaggerated statement but one that I feel is applicable to the way Scottish football is heading. There is a strong link between good TV contracts and increased attendance at games. There is no serious professional sport that has suffered a reduction in game day attendance because of TV. There is no better indication of the strength of a league/competition/sport than it's ability to attract good braodcast deals.

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.

With respect, that statement is ridiculous. Media contracts are the difference between professional leagues and amateur leagues. It is not just the TV cash that goes without a media contract. league sponsorship, clubs sponsorships are also heavilly affected. It is a matter of finding a balance between the requirements of TV and the best interests of football. The problem is that SPL has sold it as a Rangers/Celtic product instead of an SPL product.

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.

You are right, he did not say that. However, the timing of the statement would suggest it is the case. I have seen the AT blog and I can't for the life of me understand why Kenny made the statement. To me it is saying that he had bought into the information on the email when all the evidence suggested that it wasn't going to happen. They have had almost 6 months to develop contingency plans for this and they haven't. Disappointing.

Everything you say is true. However Kenny had a choice about his statement. I would rather a statement that said "this is what we are going to do" rather than "we are all doomed". And while the situation isn't their fault, they have to take some responsibility for making Plan B and Plan C given they must have known that Rangers going to Div 3 was a possibility. They may not be responsible for the problems, but the board have been caught with their pants down.

I am a bit disaapointed with Mr Cameron's comments in the Daily Record, but it is the Daily Record. However, let's assume for the moment they are correct. Mr Cameron says that they are calling an emergency board meeting to consider the financial implications of Rangers in Div 3. While this in itself is very sensible, my concern is that the meeting should have been called the minute Rangers were excluded from the SPL. It would appear that Mr Cameron expected Rangers to be in Div 1 next season. So while they voted no to Rangers quoting sporting integrity and the will of the fans, he was expecting SFL clubs to not do the same thing? Why didn't Mr Cameron make a statement once Rangers were excluded from the SPL outlining how ICT was going to adjust to the new world? Very disappointed.

This whole "we have the highest per capita attendance in the world" ismeaningless. If anything it shows there is a reduced capacity for growth. It is like saying that Jamaca win the olympics because they win the most medals per capita

I will answer them in order: Yes, however the audience will be reduced by at least 40% so the broadcast contract will be reduced by at least that amount. Yes, but unlikely at the same level. The League Cup is currently searching for a sponsor I believe. Yes, but they are starting from a very low base. This will probably be a redistribution of TV money already in the game. ie. SPL offering to provide SFL with a million pounds to broadcast rangers games. Yes, at first. But it won't last. Attendence at ibrox will be a small fraction of historical attendences once the they realise their 8 players aren't competive even at Div 3. (With current players they would struggle to win promotion from Div 1) How quickly will crowds decline once this become obvious? Probably, but this will be offset by extra policing costs and the cost of stadium repairs (A cheap shot, sorry) If sporting integrity and the rules are the things that matter, then it isn't necessary to justify the financial reasons to counter somebody else's poor argument. Whether the Div 3 clubs are finacially better off or not with Rangers is Div 3 simply does not matter. Anyone who makes this argument is no better than Regan and Doncaster

Probably tells us that Rangers Fans don't like driving to the Highlands. However it is worth noting that the audience drops by 62% for the ICT/Celtic game. And the audience for the Hibs/Motherwell game is less than half of the ICT/Celtic game. In reality, the numbers are tiny, even by subscription TV standard.

In my blog, this is why I argued that the Sky contract is worth a pittance without Rangers. the audience drops off by more than 60% for games that do not involve the Old firm (excluding Edinburgh derby) Source: http://www.kilmarnockfc.co.uk/staticFiles/71/72/0,,10291~160369,00.pdf

This is the document the SFL has sent to all clubs as to why Rangers should be in Div 1. Self interest and money motive is alive and well in the SFL. http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/108463-in-full-document-sent-to-sfl-clubs-to-put-rangers-into-the-first-division/