SPL NewCo Rules Situation

[Alex MacLeod]

If anyone wants to read the Fair Play regs they can do so here. http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/01/50/09/12/1500912_DOWNLOAD.pdf

[Scotty]

In the current situation, the demise of the might Rangers on the horizon, we will all be judged by our views on what should happen to them. Anyone suggesting their 'newco' is allowed automatic entry (it cannot be re entry as the were never entrants in the first place!) to the SPL at the expense of all the other clubs who have strived for years to get there, will be viewed as being 'Rangers minded'. Anyone with the view that they deserve expulsion will be deemed 'Celtic minded'.

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.

As a socialist, republican who believes in independence, I think that any 'newco' should start at the bottom. Some will chose to think I hold this viewpoint because of my opinions. I don't. They help me form my views but ultimately it is in my desire for fair play and justice for those who play by the rules that leads me to this conclusion. I would hold the same opinion if it was any other club in this situation (although granted, I may not enjoy it quite so much!).

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.

I'll be considered 'anti Rangers' because of my views by the likes of Chic Young and Jim Traynor. It is their problem not mine. I'm clearly on the right side this time. It's them that have the problem, not me.

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.

The decision to be made in the next few weeks by our football authorities is, singularly, the most important made in generations. It sets the rules for all going forward and benchmarks the behaviour we are willing to tolerate in our game. More importantly it identifies the consequences for those who breach, bend, break or shatter.

FFS GET IT RIGHT!

On this we are totally agreed.

[Laurence]

Scottish football needs Rangers..

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.

Ok - OK - OK - Don't get cross - I was only putting a point of view, no big deal

[Sorted]

In the current situation, the demise of the might Rangers on the horizon, we will all be judged by our views on what should happen to them. Anyone suggesting their 'newco' is allowed automatic entry (it cannot be re entry as the were never entrants in the first place!) to the SPL at the expense of all the other clubs who have strived for years to get there, will be viewed as being 'Rangers minded'. Anyone with the view that they deserve expulsion will be deemed 'Celtic minded'.

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.

As a socialist, republican who believes in independence, I think that any 'newco' should start at the bottom. Some will chose to think I hold this viewpoint because of my opinions. I don't. They help me form my views but ultimately it is in my desire for fair play and justice for those who play by the rules that leads me to this conclusion. I would hold the same opinion if it was any other club in this situation (although granted, I may not enjoy it quite so much!).

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.

I'll be considered 'anti Rangers' because of my views by the likes of Chic Young and Jim Traynor. It is their problem not mine. I'm clearly on the right side this time. It's them that have the problem, not me.

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.

The decision to be made in the next few weeks by our football authorities is, singularly, the most important made in generations. It sets the rules for all going forward and benchmarks the behaviour we are willing to tolerate in our game. More importantly it identifies the consequences for those who breach, bend, break or shatter.

FFS GET IT RIGHT!

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.

[Scotty]

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 ?

[+old caley girl]

Scotty do you not think that ICT are possibly one of the teams most equiped to manage with less money coming in? I do acknowledge that the tv money is really important to most clubs but the majority of our players are not on long deals, we dont have a huge staff and we also will have derby game money coming in next season possibly more than rangers bring in without the hassle. I am prepared to acknowledge that you are right that the game and clubs would look a lot different to now.I also believe that switching to summer football could still bring in a telly deal though probably not on the terms available now.

[Sorted]

ICT like every other club would learn to live and operate within their means (unlike Rangers). Our game would revert to breeding its own and focussing on the communities they are supposed to represent. No doubt income would drop in the short term but, for me, not as drastically as some would have you believe. There will still be a world wide audience of real Celtic fans and 'plastic paddies' willing to pay good money to watch their team. And, at the same time, I have no doubt that expenditure will go down as wage demands drop and others involved in our game become more realistic in their demands. Is an SPL referee real worth £1000 plus expenses per game? Are they really that much better than Bill Machray or Alistair Kidd? Barry Stone or Terry McDonagh?

It's high time our game remembered what it really is. The Norwegian league with two ridiculous giants.

It's perhaps a golden opportunity to get it right once and for all. Can't really get worse can it? Not as if we are going to sacrifice our huge European or international success is it?

[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.

Of course its linked ... the SPL was formed as a breakaway group from the SFL ... and therein lies the problem. 2 organisations, 2 sets of management, 2 sets of rules, 2 sets of sponsorship deals, 2 sets of criteria, and as seen in previous punishments meted out to teams, 2 levels of harshness in terms of what happens. The only real administrative links I see is that both (technically) have the SFA as their governing body, and that both have agreed to promotion/relegation between to two disparate organisations.

I would not argue about your comment that a serious enough breach should result in a team being sent to the bottom of the entire structure ..... that would make sense .... and there should also be consistent penalties that apply across the divisions for less serious breaches. However, the simple fact is that there are numerous examples of that not happening and until the entire game, or at least the parts of it that need to have a national set of rules covering all 4 divisions is actually controlled by the SFA or a new SPL-SFL-SFA (Newco) the end result will always be a bag of balls !!!!

[Sorted]

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.

Of course its linked ... the SPL was formed as a breakaway group from the SFL ... and therein lies the problem. 2 organisations, 2 sets of management, 2 sets of rules, 2 sets of sponsorship deals, 2 sets of criteria, and as seen in previous punishments meted out to teams, 2 levels of harshness in terms of what happens. The only real administrative links I see is that both (technically) have the SFA as their governing body, and that both have agreed to promotion/relegation between to two disparate organisations.

I would not argue about your comment that a serious enough breach should result in a team being sent to the bottom of the entire structure ..... that would make sense .... and there should also be consistent penalties that apply across the divisions for less serious breaches. However, the simple fact is that there are numerous examples of that not happening and until the entire game, or at least the parts of it that need to have a national set of rules covering all 4 divisions is actually controlled by the SFA or a new SPL-SFL-SFA (Newco) the end result will always be a bag of balls !!!!

Accepted. That said, there are no examples of any club being liquidated and it's successor resurrected in the same location. Clydebank was allowed to go to the wall, likewise Airdrie. No special case for retention was made.

As I see it the rules are being altered and amended to suit the current dilemma with retention of the status quo the ultimate aim. To make sure it doesn't look too much of a rollover a few 'tougher' measures are being suggested. All mere tokenism.

Perhaps a single body would lead to improvement. I think it may but don't necessarily see this as the problem. People in power, of one, two, three or whatever member organisations will always find a reason if they want to. My desire is to see that process removed. It is far more urgent than the organisational restructure.

[+CaleyD]

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 ?

The whole TV thing is a Red Herring, IMO.

TV are only interested in the OF games because they are the top two teams fighting it out for the title and because people pay to see that.

Rangers after administration/liquidation and living within their means (remember no European money) are not going to be able to compete with Celtic and someone else (or maybe a couple of teams) are going to get the jump on them for a variety of reasons.

People are kidding themselves if they think Rangers will maintain anything like the current fanbase when they aren't competing. Unless the TV companies are as naive as the Rangers fans who think they are going to be challengers for anything next season (and for a few seasons to come) then they are not going to honour the extended offer that was touted recently...contracts were already suppose to be signed, but these have not yet been returned.

Bottom line....we're going to lose a chunk of the TV money anyway, so it's (IMO) a non argument.

The alternative, booting Rangers out, opens up the way for an agreement on a more even revenue share. Yes that will be a small pot, but it's going to bring more than the smaller pot we're inevitably going to get under the current setup and by allowing Rangers (as a NewCo) to remain in the league.

I know I have been the "voice of doom" in the past when it comes to talking about the risks of ICT going into Administration or whatever, but following a few conversations I have had with various people recently it kinda dawned on me that it's near impossible for ICT to go into Administration, and even if they did, the cost of any CVA/Rescue deal would be minimal.

Why? Because we have no debt and no real means of getting any because nobody is lending. Even if we started missing Tax Payments, in the current climate the HMRC are going to clamp down before that gets to any huge amount and if they were to force administration then it would need little more than a whip round on a Saturday afternoon to dig us out of such a situation.

As we would not be the only ones facing such a situation then a 10 point penalty is likely to effect more than one team in any given season over the next couple of years, so relegation due to point deduction is not such a huge risk...and even if we were relegated, we know we can survive as a Div 1 team. Relegation cost us £1 Million, but that was because we spent a bit more than we might have in a (successful) attempt to regain SPL status. With a different attitude we could easily trim our costs and survive, in whatever league, until things started to sort themselves out and find a new level.

The real danger lies with those with debts hanging over their heads that they could not service without (current) SPL income (some struggling with SPL income)...and these will be the clubs taking a "Scottish Football needs Rangers" stance....and doing so for all the wrong reasons. In truth, regardless of whether Rangers are allowed to stay or were booted, income will drop and these clubs will struggle anyway, at best the status quo (in terms of Rangers in some form remaining) just prolongs the agony.

[Scotty]

Scotty do you not think that ICT are possibly one of the teams most equiped to manage with less money coming in? I do acknowledge that the tv money is really important to most clubs but the majority of our players are not on long deals, we dont have a huge staff and we also will have derby game money coming in next season possibly more than rangers bring in without the hassle. I am prepared to acknowledge that you are right that the game and clubs would look a lot different to now.I also believe that switching to summer football could still bring in a telly deal though probably not on the terms available now.

Given the fact that we have always seemed to be pretty well run, and we had the disappointment of relegation that forced us to make extremely deep cuts to suit a league without TV or the OF (albeit with the assistance of a parachute payment) then yes, I do believe we would be in better shape than some, in fact, I think that in general, if you go down the list of teams from traditional "biggest" to smallest then it is the bigger clubs who would be affected the worst.

I also believe that in the end, the SPL would be a far more competitive and exciting league if there wasnt just 2 teams dominating it ... Kinda like a 1st division that has teams challenging for promotion one season and fighting relegation the next as they are all quite close in performance terms. That might in turn might lead to a better TV deal than we might expect. It would not be as good as the current one, given how much money the TV companies surely make from the OF diaspora compared to the rest of us, but it would be more evenly shared so everyone might actually receive more ......

However, the middle of a recession where money is tight everywhere is not the time to do this .... so for me, I would rather hold my nose and welcome Rangers (newco) into the fold for the simple reason that their presence is of benefit to MY team .... for now.

[Scotty]

The whole TV thing is a Red Herring, IMO.

TV are only interested in the OF games because they are the top two teams fighting it out for the title and because people pay to see that.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one I am afraid .... I agree with most of the rest of what you said (which is why I cut it out), but I think you underestimate the TV thing.

They are not only interested in Celtic/Rangers because of the title. They are interested in them because they make an absolute bloody fortune selling the screening rights to these games overseas.

I cant speak for anywhere else, but i think we have enough of an ICT ex-pat community in various locales to back me up on this ... I know of at least 10 Celtic and Rangers clubs within the greater Toronto area and these are packed for every OF game as well as other games. The clubs pay a fortune to the TV companies for that coverage on pay-per-view or premium channels, and those channels now seem to align with the UK versions (ie, ESPN and Fox (or TSN2 in Canada)) and pull their feeds including commentary so they dont even have a studio overhead cost. Extrapolate that from Toronto to the rest of Canada, then into the States, to Australia, to the far East and the Middle East .... and the revenue is staggering. As much as we would all be interested in seeing ICT -V- St Mirren it doesnt have quite the same draw for others, even if it were a post-OF top of the table clash.

[+CaleyD]

The whole TV thing is a Red Herring, IMO.

TV are only interested in the OF games because they are the top two teams fighting it out for the title and because people pay to see that.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one I am afraid .... I agree with most of the rest of what you said (which is why I cut it out), but I think you underestimate the TV thing.

They are not only interested in Celtic/Rangers because of the title. They are interested in them because they make an absolute bloody fortune selling the screening rights to these games overseas.

I cant speak for anywhere else, but i think we have enough of an ICT ex-pat community in various locales to back me up on this ... I know of at least 10 Celtic and Rangers clubs within the greater Toronto area and these are packed for every OF game as well as other games. The clubs pay a fortune to the TV companies for that coverage on pay-per-view or premium channels, and those channels now seem to align with the UK versions (ie, ESPN and Fox (or TSN2 in Canada)) and pull their feeds including commentary so they dont even have a studio overhead cost. Extrapolate that from Toronto to the rest of Canada, then into the States, to Australia, to the far East and the Middle East .... and the revenue is staggering. As much as we would all be interested in seeing ICT -V- St Mirren it doesnt have quite the same draw for others, even if it were a post-OF top of the table clash.

That's fine, if you buy into the theory that a non-competitive Rangers will retain its current level of following. You just have to look at how much gates and TV fall off for one half of the OF when the other secures the league early or crashed out of Europe for an indication of what would happen. A non-competitive Rangers will be lucky to half fill Ibrox (and they struggle to do that at present for some games).

If you believe last months Rangers Fan Rants about not follow following a NewCo then you can probably slice that even further should liquidation occur.

Let's face it, it took "proceeds of crime" and handouts in the region of £350 Million over the last 12 to 15 years to get/keep them where they are now. Where are the going to get that amount of money in near future?....and we;re talking money over and above that needed to just survive day to day in order to become the "force" they have been.

[hislopsoffsideagain]

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:

[Scotty]

That's fine, if you buy into the theory that a non-competitive Rangers will retain its current level of following. You just have to look at how much gates and TV fall off for one half of the OF when the other secures the league early or crashed out of Europe for an indication of what would happen. A non-competitive Rangers will be lucky to half fill Ibrox (and they struggle to do that at present for some games).

TV audiences never fill grounds and I never mentioned that aspect once ... you just need to look at Celtic in the barren years to see how low attendances were at Parkhead! Would be interesting to see what "viewing figures" were for games on TV at the same time. However, from knowing quite a few of the culprits over here as I see them at TFC games, I am confident in saying the Rangers/Celtic clubs over here would still be showing the games and therefore paying for them regardless. Hell I know some folk that get up at some ungodly hours and watch some nondescript english, spanish, Mexican, Brazilian or other games just because they are on TV .....

not saying you are wrong ... just saying I think you may have underestimated portions of it !

[+DoofersDad]

If Rangers newco (Whiter than Whyte FC) apply to join the SPL to take Glasgow Rangers place, there is absolutely no reason why the SPL should have any obligation to accept their application and every reason why they should not. They have an agreement with the SFL that admittance to the SPL is via promotion from Division 1 of the SFL and that is the only route that any club has ever been admitted to the SPL and the only route any club will ever be admitted. If Whiter than Whyte FC apply to join the SPL the SPL should be telling them that they will only accept applications from the Champions of the SFL first division.

If there is a vacancy in the SPL as a result of a club failing and not reforming then I understand the arrangement would be that the club which finished bottom would not be relegated rather than the club finishing 2nd in the SFL going up. Whilst I don't agree with that, it does mean that the teams in the SFL 1st division have a better chance of promotion the next season because they are not competing against the club which would otherwise have been relegated. However, that is denied to them if a newly formed club is allowed into the SPL without going through the usual route and as a result, a club is relegated. It is even harder, of course, on the club that is relegated. I hope Dunfermline have got some good lawyers on board.

It seems to me therefore that the SFL and the clubs that make up its membership should be strongly objecting to any suggestion of Whiter than Whyte FC being admitted to the SPL. I don't know what all the rules and agreements are but I would be interested to know if there is any clause which allows for admittance to the SPL other than by promotion from the SFL. All a bit hypothetical I know because when do Rangers and the SPL play by the rules in any case? At least I feel better for venting my spleen.

[+CaleyD]

Rules were changed on filling spaces in the SPL if/when they arose for whatever reason. Bottom team still gets relegated and any additional position/s are filled in order from the top of Div 1.

[DJS]

I have to admit I'm struggling with Scottish football. Not that long ago I would get excited about the possibility of a game on a Saturday but now I feel I'm only going out of a sense of duty.

If Rangers are liquidated and bounce straight back into the SPL as a newco, Scottish football will have become such a joke that the Clach Park or even Tesco will seem like a more appealing proposition than a game in our country's "top" division. If the boot was on the other foot and ICT were liquidated and turned back up as Inverness City looking for a SPL place, would Rangers vote them back in? Would they hell!!

What will I do if it happens? I truly don't know is the answer. I will see how other family members feel who attend games but I think it is likely that I'll at the very least find myself considering how I can best make my feelings of disgust felt.

[Gabby]

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 ?

The whole TV thing is a Red Herring, IMO.

TV are only interested in the OF games because they are the top two teams fighting it out for the title and because people pay to see that.

Rangers after administration/liquidation and living within their means (remember no European money) are not going to be able to compete with Celtic and someone else (or maybe a couple of teams) are going to get the jump on them for a variety of reasons.

People are kidding themselves if they think Rangers will maintain anything like the current fanbase when they aren't competing. Unless the TV companies are as naive as the Rangers fans who think they are going to be challengers for anything next season (and for a few seasons to come) then they are not going to honour the extended offer that was touted recently...contracts were already suppose to be signed, but these have not yet been returned.

Bottom line....we're going to lose a chunk of the TV money anyway, so it's (IMO) a non argument.

The alternative, booting Rangers out, opens up the way for an agreement on a more even revenue share. Yes that will be a small pot, but it's going to bring more than the smaller pot we're inevitably going to get under the current setup and by allowing Rangers (as a NewCo) to remain in the league.

I know I have been the "voice of doom" in the past when it comes to talking about the risks of ICT going into Administration or whatever, but following a few conversations I have had with various people recently it kinda dawned on me that it's near impossible for ICT to go into Administration, and even if they did, the cost of any CVA/Rescue deal would be minimal.

Why? Because we have no debt and no real means of getting any because nobody is lending. Even if we started missing Tax Payments, in the current climate the HMRC are going to clamp down before that gets to any huge amount and if they were to force administration then it would need little more than a whip round on a Saturday afternoon to dig us out of such a situation.

As we would not be the only ones facing such a situation then a 10 point penalty is likely to effect more than one team in any given season over the next couple of years, so relegation due to point deduction is not such a huge risk...and even if we were relegated, we know we can survive as a Div 1 team. Relegation cost us £1 Million, but that was because we spent a bit more than we might have in a (successful) attempt to regain SPL status. With a different attitude we could easily trim our costs and survive, in whatever league, until things started to sort themselves out and find a new level.

The real danger lies with those with debts hanging over their heads that they could not service without (current) SPL income (some struggling with SPL income)...and these will be the clubs taking a "Scottish Football needs Rangers" stance....and doing so for all the wrong reasons. In truth, regardless of whether Rangers are allowed to stay or were booted, income will drop and these clubs will struggle anyway, at best the status quo (in terms of Rangers in some form remaining) just prolongs the agony.

Without the TV deal there would be mass redundencies with every club in the SPL. You cannot lose 30% of your income and continue in the same way. I think you need to take the football fan emotion out of your argument and look at the financial facts. Nobody likes the situation, but that doesn't change the situation.

[Laurence]

I was reminded the other day by a Rugby League following friend of mine, who told me when the Fulham R L club was bought out a few years ago. All the best players left the club with the permission of the courts, because the rule is new owners cannot claim the previous contracts. Theuy all have to be resigned

Could that have ramifications for the new Rangers?

[+CaleyD]

Without the TV deal there would be mass redundencies with every club in the SPL. You cannot lose 30% of your income and continue in the same way. I think you need to take the football fan emotion out of your argument and look at the financial facts. Nobody likes the situation, but that doesn't change the situation.

You are totally missing my point...and it has nothing to do with emotion and I'm certainly not trying to change the situation.

1. SPL with Rangers (NewCo or OldCo) will appeal less to TV companies than it has up until now.

2. SPL without Rangers will appeal less to TV companies than it has up until now.

Either of those scenarios is likely to mean a rethink of the offer that is/was on the table and less money coming in to the pot.

I agree that 1 will likely provide a bigger deal than two, but to suggest TV will withdraw altogether from Scottish Football under scenario 2 is ridiculous. I don't know which half of the OF pulls the bigger TV crowds, but I imagine it's even enough for the sake of argument. The Celtic crowd is still worth something to TV companies so we're not looking at a 30% drop in league income....even if we were, you still have to look at whether a larger slice of a smaller pie is better than a smaller slice of a slightly larger pie. Even if worse off with the larger slice of the smaller pie, is that a price worth selling all morals and principles for???

You then have to look at league sponsorship. (Allegedly) 2 big potential sponsors have withdrawn their interest...and I don't for one minute believe Toppings spin that this is due to the "SPL 10" standing up to the OF. It's more likely because they don't want to be associated with the embarrassing shambles that is the SPL. Are any other sponsors going to be as keen to attach their name (especially a global brand) to a league that all but sanctions fraud? Is what might be lost from a potential sponsor by allowing a NewCo Rangers stay in the SPL more or less than the difference in TV Money?

There's this huge assumption that we will be better off financially with a NewCo Rangers than we would be without...all I'm saying is that it's not the cut and dry case that many are trying to make it out to be and the "price" of losing Rangers isn't as likely to be anything like as big as what is being suggested.

Of course, there is the 'Elephant in the Room' which...if you are morally bankrupt enough to accept it and make a case for it...would give the upper hand on the "better off financially with Rangers argument". Anyone want to take up that case? Like it or not, anyone putting forward an argument based on keeping Rangers because we need the Rangers v Celtic rivalry is skirting on the edge of saying "I'm happy to see the SPL profit from sectarianism & bigotry"...because that's one of the biggest driving factors behind those teams being as big and successful as they are today.

I'm not saying get rid of Rangers for that reason, or keep them for that reason....I'm just saying that when you are setting aside your morals and your principles in accepting and/or arguing a case in their favour, you might just be selling out more than you thought.

[Gabby]

I was reminded the other day by a Rugby League following friend of mine, who told me when the Fulham R L club was bought out a few years ago. All the best players left the club with the permission of the courts, because the rule is new owners cannot claim the previous contracts. Theuy all have to be resigned

Could that have ramifications for the new Rangers?

Yes, that's correct. Once Glasgow Rangers go into liquidation all playing contracts become null and void. They would have to recruit from scratch. some will want to stay, some will want to leave and Govan Rangers just won't be able to afford some of them.

It is also worthwhile mentioning that in exhange for accepting a cut in wages, Ranger players negotiated free releases if they are still in administration at the end of the season. There are some very busy player agents at the moment.

[Gabby]

Without the TV deal there would be mass redundencies with every club in the SPL. You cannot lose 30% of your income and continue in the same way. I think you need to take the football fan emotion out of your argument and look at the financial facts. Nobody likes the situation, but that doesn't change the situation.

You are totally missing my point...and it has nothing to do with emotion and I'm certainly not trying to change the situation.

1. SPL with Rangers (NewCo or OldCo) will appeal less to TV companies than it has up until now.

2. SPL without Rangers will appeal less to TV companies than it has up until now.

Either of those scenarios is likely to mean a rethink of the offer that is/was on the table and less money coming in to the pot.

I agree that 1 will likely provide a bigger deal than two, but to suggest TV will withdraw altogether from Scottish Football under scenario 2 is ridiculous. I don't know which half of the OF pulls the bigger TV crowds, but I imagine it's even enough for the sake of argument. The Celtic crowd is still worth something to TV companies so we're not looking at a 30% drop in league income....even if we were, you still have to look at whether a larger slice of a smaller pie is better than a smaller slice of a slightly larger pie. Even if worse off with the larger slice of the smaller pie, is that a price worth selling all morals and principles for???

You then have to look at league sponsorship. (Allegedly) 2 big potential sponsors have withdrawn their interest...and I don't for one minute believe Toppings spin that this is due to the "SPL 10" standing up to the OF. It's more likely because they don't want to be associated with the embarrassing shambles that is the SPL. Are any other sponsors going to be as keen to attach their name (especially a global brand) to a league that all but sanctions fraud? Is what might be lost from a potential sponsor by allowing a NewCo Rangers stay in the SPL more or less than the difference in TV Money?

There's this huge assumption that we will be better off financially with a NewCo Rangers than we would be without...all I'm saying is that it's not the cut and dry case that many are trying to make it out to be and the "price" of losing Rangers isn't as likely to be anything like as big as what is being suggested.

Of course, there is the 'Elephant in the Room' which...if you are morally bankrupt enough to accept it and make a case for it...would give the upper hand on the "better off financially with Rangers argument". Anyone want to take up that case? Like it or not, anyone putting forward an argument based on keeping Rangers because we need the Rangers v Celtic rivalry is skirting on the edge of saying "I'm happy to see the SPL profit from sectarianism & bigotry"...because that's one of the biggest driving factors behind those teams being as big and successful as they are today.

I'm not saying get rid of Rangers for that reason, or keep them for that reason....I'm just saying that when you are setting aside your morals and your principles in accepting and/or arguing a case in their favour, you might just be selling out more than you thought.

I'm not missing your point, I am saying that your point isn't supported by the facts.

[+CaleyD]

Ok, let me see those facts, because all I have right now is a TV Contract that's not been signed and returned and 2 possible large sponsors that have withdrawn an interest despite proposals that allow Rangers to remain in the SPL....fact!!!

[Gabby]

Sure, here are some facts that I have already provided. The sky contract is worth 13 million pounds a season and stipulates a minimum of 3 old firm games per season. No Rangers (Glasgow or Govan) - no TV contract - Fact.

Last set of ICT accounts I saw was turnover of 2.6 million pounds - 650 000 pounds of that was from TV. This represents 25% of turnover. Since then ICT has had a reduction in turnover from reduced crowds and sponorship so as a result TV would represent a higher rate of turnover. Fact.

The TV contract and sponsors wthdrawal is more than likely due to the uncertainty of the situation. If Govan Rangers are admitted to the SPL, the TV contract and sponsors are more likely to return, but no guarantee I conceed.

I don't want Govan Rangers to return to the SPL, however this WILL result in Part Time footballers at best. Every club will be in financial distress if the TV money and sponsors withdraw - every club with the possible exception of Celtic. Celtic would have to trim their budgets over time but they would become even less competitive in Europe because they wouldn't be able to attract the quality of players required. This is already the case and will only get worse.

This whole larger split of a smaller pie just simply doesn't hold water because the pie would be significantly smaller.

Your whole argument is based on your belief that Rangers should not be readmitted into the SPL. I agree with you - I am just trying to point out the cost. All the clubs in the SPL will be wearing out the buttons on their calculators and they will be accountable to their fans when they vote to admit Govan Rangers or accountable to the Accountants if they don't vote to admit Govan Rangers.

This is not a "they all lived happily ever after" scenario. No Rangers will mean significant and possible catastrophic financial pain for all SPL clubs.

Rangers Stay/Rangers Go - either way Scottish Football will have significant issues to deal with in the next 5 years - fan apathy, financial, sponorship, marketing, player recruitment just for starters. Independent SPL Directors would be a very good start.