If Rangers go then the SPL should disolve

[Gabby]

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

Edited March 8, 2012 by Gabby

[CaleyD]

The problem with those making the decisions...Chairmen, Boards, Financial Officers...is that they are all "short term" people. Therefore as much as they might like to talk about the long term, the reality is that they are more concerned about things not going tits up under their watch and will only ever worry about the short term.

One example is Neil Doncaster who continues to spout the "16 team league would cost the SPL £20 Million a year" line. That figure is based on carrying forward all the figures etc as they sit here and now and only making adjustments for fewer games and (possible) reduced TV income....although I've not seen anything from TV companies to suggest they think the product would be less valuable with a larger league!!! No allowance is made in his calculations for the positive effects of the change....and that is largely due to the fact that the real benefits are long term and go beyond the 2 or 3 year TV deals.

What's more, no lessons seem to have been learned from the last time leagues/clubs operated a model based on TV income. Granted, the amount of money from TV now may be less, but to rely on it when we know it could be pulled from under our feet at any given moment is sheer stupidity. For that reason, TV income should be all but taken out of the equation when deciding on a structure and business model that is sustainable for the long term. If individual clubs want to take a risk on operating with a reliance on that income, then that is for them to decide, but it is not something which football governing bodies should be encouraging, far less using as a beating stick to maintain a setup which does nothing to secure the long term future of the game.

Whatever way you look at it, it comes back to the fact that the only long term factor that you can rely upon are the fans....but only if you give them the voice and the power to direct not only the clubs they support, but the overall setup of the game in a manner that fits with the wants and needs of the majority.

Until that happens, football will continue to lurch from one disaster to the next under a series of short term "fixes" being put in place by short term Chairmen/Directors/League Authorities etc. who are more worried about making themselves look good here and now, than they are about the real long term future of the sport.

[Yngwie]

Liquidation followed by a "Rangers 2012" is a mind boggling situation that will have the SPL constitution and rulebook being analysed and no doubt rewritten.

You are absolutely right that the SPL will have to find a way of admitting a "Rangers 2012" newco, and that it is an unprecedented opportunity to redress the balance of power.

A Rangers 2012, debt free and with a massive fan base and stadium, could be created within a few weeks but will need a league to play in. When they come begging to the SPL for a place, the SPL will comprise just 11 members, only 1 of whom is in favour of the current weighting of income distribution to the top 2 teams. So the wee teams could surely win a vote 10-1 - however, what does the SPL constitution actually say regarding the required voting majority? Currently 11 votes are needed to push through a change, but is there provision for that figure to reduce if there are less than 12 members?

[Yngwie]

For that reason, TV income should be all but taken out of the equation when deciding on a structure and business model that is sustainable for the long term.

A league of mostly part-time teams then?

[old caley girl]

One suggestion being offered the other night is that we should start again and "invite" teams to participate in the SPL. based on crowds etc. Could only see this going back to the bad old days of only central belt teams, Aberdeen and the 2 dundee teams being seen as worthy. So teams like ourselves and County who have worked our way up the leagues but dont have huge crowds would not be invited even though we are well run and live within our means. Crazy.

Surely this is a great opportunity to change the balance of power ie voting rights etc but I wouldnt bet my mortgage on any of the clubs doing it!

[Gabby]

For that reason, TV income should be all but taken out of the equation when deciding on a structure and business model that is sustainable for the long term.

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.

[Gabby]

One example is Neil Doncaster who continues to spout the "16 team league would cost the SPL £20 Million a year" line. That figure is based on carrying forward all the figures etc as they sit here and now and only making adjustments for fewer games and (possible) reduced TV income....although I've not seen anything from TV companies to suggest they think the product would be less valuable with a larger league!!! No allowance is made in his calculations for the positive effects of the change....and that is largely due to the fact that the real benefits are long term and go beyond the 2 or 3 year TV deals.

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.

[Gabby]

For that reason, TV income should be all but taken out of the equation when deciding on a structure and business model that is sustainable for the long term.

A league of mostly part-time teams then?

Yes, at first. However with strong leadership at the governing body there is opportunity here.

[starchief]

I've never thought it was particularly important to go to 16 teams if the money situation remained the same. All you'd have is the OF thumping 10 past Queen of the South or Ayr United or whoever squeaked through. However, it is a real chance to do something long-term.

For me, two professional leagues of ten/twelve (local below that). Money shared so that all the bigger clubs can have a chance of competing. The medium sized like ours, with a good manager and the odd gem, can do something special, like challenge occasionally or win the odd cup. Good relegation and SFL1 battles without the prospect of financial collapse if they are relegated.

It should partially be based on crowd size intially. If a team like Morton slips out into SFL2, the other clubs get a boost from their slightly larger support, whilst Morton struggle to keep their squad on the basis of no fans from Alloa. Geography however also has to come into play. The Highlands and the south will never have any huge teams but it's still worth representation within these areas for the overall good of the Scottish game.

I know some disagree with top ten/twelve but that's based on the current wealth distribution. A 16-team SPL would mean a very poor SFL1. Although I think changing the money structure is infinitely more important than 10, 12, 16 or 18 team leagues.

So, a complete reorganisation and wealth redistribution. If possibly the greatest manager in the world took over at one of Scotland's biggest clubs (i.e. Alex Ferguson at Aberdeen), there would still be a struggle to get out of the bottom six, year upon year.

[davie]

There is a great deal of historical behaviour to suggest that the SPL will find a way to accommodate Govan 1690 or whatever newco rise after liquidation. The behaviour of a lickspittle central belt media and Regan and Doncaster reinforce this. However, liquidation is a much bigger problem for them to deal with in that any accommodation straight into SPL would rid scottish football of it's last vestiges of integrity. Is that a thing that Doncaster et al can afford? If they don't hammer Rangers, there's every possibility that UEFA will (see Sion/ Serviette)

As for the television deal, does the lack of one club really affect the long term attractiveness of the deal? ESPN have to keep going with the customer base that they have in Scotland or risk this part of their network going the same way as Setanta. BSkyB also have to keep a scottish presence as part of their UK strategy, and would probably bank on at least some of the bluenoses keeping their subscriptions to watch enviously as scottish football gets on just fine without them. Part time, run down third rate football as a consequence of the Rangers saga and the lack of the OF bigot fest is not a foregone conclusion and there is little or no evidence to suggest it would happen.Lots of opinion, yes, but no evidence. A league that is more competitive for all the sides in it ( it certainly is in terms of the bottom six and top four) would actually improve standards without the distraction of the same two tawdry giants winning everything year after year after year. A more attractive prospect? I think so. It would also force scottish football ( and clubs like our own) to stop relying on cheap/ loan imports from the south and produce more of the Munro's and Duncan's that people on this forum purport to miss so much. It would certainly provide impetus to Mark Wotte's overhaul of the youth system. There are, if you care to look for them, many positives to this situation that make the SPL re-writing the rule book unwise and self defeating. In the end, it might be out of their hands anyway, in that with every passing day another tale of abysmal management and irresponsibility comes to light. There might not be anything left to ressurect after liquidation, and even if there was why the feck should we after what they have done?

[CaleyD]

Feck sake guys, read the whole thing and don't just focus on individual parts and cherry pick comments. As far as the SPL (or whoever it be in future) is concerned, they do not need a TV deal to run the game (financially) and it should not be taken in to the the equation, certainly not as heavily as it is, when making decisions on what is best for the game.

FACT....TV deals, and the subsequent loss of those deals, are what caused much of the financial problems....or more accurately, the heavy reliance on the income from those deals for the long term when deals were only short term. It is naive in the extreme to ignore that and to launch a long term plan for improvement on the back of finances that are not guaranteed for any more than a couple of seasons at a time.

How can you build a stable platform on such unstable foundations?

If clubs want to take a gamble on relying on that income beyond the agreed deals then, as I said, that is for them to decide, but they would be doing so within a structure which does not mean that the league suffers one way or the other should the wheels fall off. Just look at how things are now where the threat to one clubs existence is being viewed as a threat to other clubs and the league as a whole....is that really the way we want to be running the game?

[Gabby]

Feck sake guys, read the whole thing and don't just focus on individual parts and cherry pick comments. As far as the SPL (or whoever it be in future) is concerned, they do not need a TV deal to run the game (financially) and it should not be taken in to the the equation, certainly not as heavily as it is, when making decisions on what is best for the game.

The don't need it to run the game, they need it to finance the game. A TV deal is essential not just because of the income it directly generates. it also impacts on the value of sponsorship that individual clubs attract. TV deals ensure a level of national exposure. Please do not under estimate the value of indirect revenue from a TV deal

[CaleyD]

One example is Neil Doncaster who continues to spout the "16 team league would cost the SPL £20 Million a year" line. That figure is based on carrying forward all the figures etc as they sit here and now and only making adjustments for fewer games and (possible) reduced TV income....although I've not seen anything from TV companies to suggest they think the product would be less valuable with a larger league!!! No allowance is made in his calculations for the positive effects of the change....and that is largely due to the fact that the real benefits are long term and go beyond the 2 or 3 year TV deals.

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.

I never made any assumption about the TV deal being the same.....but I would say that less people watching on TV and more people actually attending games would be to the benefit of the game. If it was up to me then I would get rid of live domestic football (i.e. no live Scottish games broadcast in Scotland, but available to the rest of the world). This would help get more people back into stadiums whilst still benefiting from some kind of TV deal. I am confident enough that such a move would increase attendances and income at the turnstiles sufficiently to counter any reduced TV income that would result from such a move.

Any restructuring of the league finances would, I agree, need to involve a fairer split...removing the disproportionately large amounts paid to the top 2. Even if we use your assumption that I assumed the pot would remain the same, it might be spread out among more people, but it would still mean an increased revenue for many, levelling the playing field and making it more competitive.

Moving from 12 to 16 teams means that, on the simplest level, clubs would need to increase average attendance by 12.5% to counter the cost (at turnstiles) from such a move. I am confident that in conjunction with a more competitive league (with fairer distribution of finances to offset all these additional costs you talk about) could overcome that shortfall.

The game is on a quick downwards spiral and no one thing is going to halt that, far less reverse it. We're also beyond the stage of fixing things without having to endure some kind of short term pain....and speeding head on in to a situation where trying to tinker will only result in us getting to a situation where administration, part time football and all the other negatives will be a certainty for the majority of clubs.

Do I think my ideas would turn things around over night? Not at all, but short term tinkering is not working and the decline continues.

Do I think there will be casualties with my ideas? Almost certainly, but not as many as if we fail to take radical action.

I'm talking about having to make some pretty ballsy decisions....but that's what it is going to take to get the game out of the mess it is in and back on its feet.

[CaleyD]

Feck sake guys, read the whole thing and don't just focus on individual parts and cherry pick comments. As far as the SPL (or whoever it be in future) is concerned, they do not need a TV deal to run the game (financially) and it should not be taken in to the the equation, certainly not as heavily as it is, when making decisions on what is best for the game.

The don't need it to run the game, they need it to finance the game. A TV deal is essential not just because of the income it directly generates. it also impacts on the value of sponsorship that individual clubs attract. TV deals ensure a level of national exposure. Please do not under estimate the value of indirect revenue from a TV deal

I sometimes wonder how football has survived as long as it has....all teams must have been millions of pounds in debt and going to the wall every other week before the TV deals came along!!!

Oh no, wait a minute, they didn't....in fact more teams have gone out of existence through financial mismanagement (by a long way) in the last 25 years than the rest of the history of the game put together.

I'm not saying we get rid of TV, we just have to better manage it. Look at the drop in attendances since the TV deals begun and fans started staying at home instead of going to stadiums. If you could turn back the clock and offer clubs the income from those lost crowds or the income from TV deals then I would wager that clubs would opt to keep the crowds every time....I'm putting forward a suggestion that would see them benefit from both.

[Alex MacLeod]

As the rules of the SPL stand at the minute, assuming Rangers are liquidated and dont fulfill their fixtures, they would be expelled from SPL.

Company rules and regulations will say that if Rangers are liquidated all their assets, including Ibrox and Murray Park, would be sold off to pay off thoses owed money. Would the persons hoping to reform Rangers as a new entity be in a position to purchase the assets. They would have to come to agreement with administrators and debtors that debts would be paid off or they would have to bid on an open market for the assets. I can see developers being pretty interested.

As for change I forsee an amalgamation of SPL and SFL within the next three or four years. Scotland has proved it is not a big enough country to have three governing bodies of the sport. I also believe that we will form our own TV company and not be dependant on monies from existing companies.

Change is needed and it will come whether or not there is a Rangers FC or some new entity.

[Scarlet Pimple]

That's dead right---Caledonain and Thistle survived for many a long year without T.V.

But they did not spend huge amounts of money on players either.

Their stadiums and facilities were modest and they had few, if any,about winning the Scottish Cup. If they started to win games in the Scottish Cup, then the fans got really excited and attended matches in droves. They existed on providing honest endeavour and the odd few thrills.

What is so blinking great about being in the SPL anyway? Come on! Be very honest. Where has it got most teams? Why, into debt, of course and living beyond their means, for sure.

The glory that SPL membership brings is illusory at best. Few major, if any, English,European or Spanish teams (for example) have ever come to Inverness on serious football duty and are immediately forgotten about afterwards.

TV deals have simply allowed underfunded and under-achieving teams in Scotland to survive, get the idea that they are able to compete on a par with the Big boys (Old Firm), and one day will be on some kind of a par in terms of the number of spectators thay they can attrcat. Ity's a house of cards buiklt on a weak and dangerous foundatyion of little more than dreams.

People don't attend matches because of, IMHO, four factors.:

1.Too high a price for tickets in the current economic atmosphere.

2.Games are played in miserable conditions when fans are physically in distress and the incidence of injuries is much higher on the field of play. All games must be changed, rationally, to summer footballl.

3.T.V.-- Stop the broadcast live of SPL games and attendances should go up.

4. Boredom and lack of emotional satisfaction and little in the way of supporting entertainment. The Americans and Canadians go all out to provide this kind of attraction whether it be cheer-leading, drum corps, high school bands , or the Cirque de Soleil in miniature. It all adds up to a sense of going to a game for a total fun package. and a real day out for the family.

So, the clubs don't have the money to put on this kind of show, you say? Exactly! Which must mean that something is radically wrong, right?

In short, it's a self-perpetuating scenario with no obvious means of escape and the clubs are deluding themselves

into thinking that they can attract fans by pretending they are a big cut above the Highland League or Division 1 or 2 so to speak.

I will summarise these feelings this way,

Rangers problems are a chance to re-vamp Scottish Football right across the Board, bringing in more equality by distributing the overall income MUCH MORE FAIRLY. Then some clubs may start to flourish.

The attendances at home games involving Rangers and Celtic for the clubs are down so these two clubs no longer are a guarantee for the other clubs to survive. By contrast, the negative influence asserted by these two large teams is disproportionately higher on the SPL in particular, and on Scottish Football in general, compared to their positive influence.

Getting rid of one or the other offers a chance for fresh air to blow in and release pent up frustrations and energy which are currently being battened down and fostering the above delusions that the clubs below these teams are in a League where they can compete on equal terms with them.

Will these suggestions be adopted in the short term?

What do you think?

[PaderbornCaley]

If Rangers are liquidated before the end of the season and therefore can't fulfil the rest of the fixtures they will automatically be expelled from the SPL? Correct?

With Rangersexpelled and therefore relegated does this mean that the bottom club would survive the drop?

Or would the bottom team still be relegated and 2 First Division teams promoted?

[Alex MacLeod]

If Rangers are liquidated before the end of the season and therefore can't fulfil the rest of the fixtures they will automatically be expelled from the SPL? Correct?

With Rangersexpelled and therefore relegated does this mean that the bottom club would survive the drop?

Or would the bottom team still be relegated and 2 First Division teams promoted?

When a company goes into liquidation it immediately ceases to trade and is wound up as a company With no club there can be no membership of SPL.

I would think it would be no different to the Falkirk situation in 2002 where the bottom team (Motherwell) were saved because Falkirk couldn't meet the membership criterea to come up to SPL

[Yngwie]

Gabby speaks,the clubs listen and react immediately!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17304341

[Alex MacLeod]

OK Gabby time to out yourself. Are you Kenny Cameron in disguise?

[+DoofersDad]

If Rangers go into liquidation why should they be allowed to do anything but join the system at the bottom? Examples in the English system include Halifax,Newport and Aldershot who are all former football league sides who went into liquidation with reformed clubs being admitted to leagues 3, 4 and 5 tiers below where they were when they went bankrupt. And in these cases the clubs had already dropped a level or two in previous years as a result of their financial dificulties.

If Rangers go into liquidation then there would be a vacancy in the SPL which might be filled by the club finishing bottom of the SPL not being relegated. That in turn would result at the end of the day in a vacancy in division 3 of the SFL which a new Whiter than Whyte FC would be entitled to apply for along with Linlithgow Rose, Gala Fairydean, Wick Academy and the rest. To place them anywhere else higher up the system would be to flout the rules and would be grossly unfair on other clubs who have been struggling away whilst playing by the rules.

Meanwhile the SPL clubs can introduce new rules which prohibit relegation from or promotion to the SPL for 10 years in order that the game in Scotland can develop with the top clubs being able to experiment with attractive attacking football without the fear of relegation cramping their style.

[Gabby]

Gabby speaks,the clubs listen and react immediately!

http://www.bbc.co.uk...otball/17304341

It is really good to see the other 10 members showing leadership on this.

[PullMyFinger]

Dissolve would be fine, reapply to SFL and cut out the old boys network completely.

[Alex MacLeod]

Seems to me that the rules are being re-written every day

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17310468

[Yngwie]

That's a good article, clears up some of the things I had been wondering about.