No it won't, it will just mean that other clubs in a lower division benefit for a couple of years while they work their way back up. Don't forget many of these clubs are owed money by Rangers and likely to get shafted so why shouldn't they take the chance of going for a Champions League spot in their absence?
This isn't aimed at you specifically but I'd stake my mortgage that a lot of posters would view things less sympathetically if it were the other club involved.
No it won't, it will just mean that other clubs in a lower division benefit for a couple of years while they work their way back up. Don't forget many of these clubs are owed money by Rangers and likely to get shafted so why shouldn't they take the chance of going for a Champions League spot in their absence?
This isn't aimed at you specifically but I stake my mortgage that a lot of posters would view things less sympathetically if it were the other club involved.
I follow Celtic up there (if anyone) so no sympathy other than for the Rangers fans who will get shafted because of the piss poor management of their club.
I still think the knock on effect of relegating one of the old firm would hurt the other clubs more in the long term. I cant see SKY pouring money into the league when youll have Celtic and then poss the Edinburgh teams trailing in a poor second.
I think its wrong but just think that removing one of the OF would be detrimental to what is already little more than a pub league for neutrals.
I cant remember the last time i watched a Scottish game not involving Celtic or Rangers other than the Cup final recently and can imagine most would say the same.
Ok I understand the point about affecting the SL as a whole, so what is the solution, because effectively we the tax payers have been robbed of significant revenue and the New Co. owners will receive a business that has actually been put into good health at a fraction of the cost. The same happened at Palace, they could not afford tocover their debts so went into admin were bought out of admin through a CVA and almost oinstantly were buying players whilst the tax payer and small buasinesses received diddly squat. If you want to protect SL what is the answer? And on the wider aspect what is the answer to businesses going bust reforming and repeating the sins of their predecessor
Ok I understand the point about affecting the SL as a whole, so what is the solution, because effectively we the tax payers have been robbed of significant revenue and the New Co. owners will receive a business that has actually been put into good health at a fraction of the cost. The same happened at Palace, they could not afford tocover their debts so went into admin were bought out of admin through a CVA and almost oinstantly were buying players whilst the tax payer and small buasinesses received diddly squat. If you want to protect SL what is the answer? And on the wider aspect what is the answer to businesses going bust reforming and repeating the sins of their predecessor
So your issue with the rules that allow Rangers to do what they are doing rather than with Rangers themselves ? If so then that's your answer. Kicking Rangers out of the SPL won't change the rules that have brought this situation to pass. Maybe using this as a catalyst for reviewing the fundamental laws of administration and liquidation would be the best outcome.
Completely agree Len with the first two sentences but am sceptical about the reality that other clubs would progress in time before Sky stopped pumping the money in/ UEFA decided to limit the Scottish CL places to one club.
The irony is that if both the Old Firms were relegated it would actually make the SPL a lot more competitive and the remaining clubs could improve, attract the best players and get better overall in time.
As it stands if Rangers get relegated then Celtic will lose their biggest rival on the pitch but also perhaps more importantly off it in terms of signing players. Celtic would be unrivalled in spending power and would probably walk the league each season making it even harder for the other clubs to catch them as they would get stronger each season.
Perhaps a Hibs/Hearts/ Aberdeen could finish second but wouldnt likely have the spending power to buy squads capable of seriously competing in Europe (when you look how the OF still struggle despite years of experience and wealth accumulation).
Id say the last couple of Premiership seasons down here have been so good because there have been 4- 6 teams seriously in contention rather than the previous Man utd/ Arsenal or more recent Man utd/ Chelsea dominance.
I think by reducing the competition in the SPL even further by getting rid of one half of the OF powerhouse will actually make for a less competitive league and damage scottish fitba even more.
Just shows how BskyB and the big few clubs in each league effectively run football, as has been said on here if it were another side, even hibs or hearts, they would be relegated without question. I understand the whole debate that it may negatively effect scottish football, but surely not punishing them the same way as everyone else will have a worse effect? If teams can look at this situation and see rangers getting away with it and coming out the otherside in a far more healthy financial situation with very few drawbacks( a few years of no European football) then they are likely to do the same themselves and once again as always it is the taxpayers and other businesses who get to pay for it with a big F.U from Sky and the big clubs.
I follow Celtic up there (if anyone) so no sympathy other than for the Rangers fans who will get shafted because of the piss poor management of their club.
I still think the knock on effect of relegating one of the old firm would hurt the other clubs more in the long term. I cant see SKY pouring money into the league when youll have Celtic and then poss the Edinburgh teams trailing in a poor second.
Fair enough viewpoint but my sympathy lies more with the tax payer on this one and £95m plus in the current climate would go a long, long, way.
As an alternative, maybe this actually makes the league more interesting to Sky? Instead of the usual predictable SPL year after year, in effect they will be able to show Rangers in a cup final every week resulting in them (almost certainly) getting promoted. Maybe they would actually sell more subscriptions off the back of it?
It's absolute tosh that Scottish football can't survive without the old firm or TV. In the early 80s Rangers were relatively weak in a competitive league that Dundee United and Aberdeen won the league and Hearts came within a spectacular final day collapse of doing the same. What was different? Well the national team was busy qualifying for it's fifth world cup in a row. Teams were generally competitive in Europe, Dundee United got to the European Cup semi only to be beaten by some very iffy reffing and disposed of the likes of BM and Barca on the way to a great UEFA final. Aberdeen went one better beating Spanish minnows Real Madrid to win the CWC. Other than the old firm clubs (Rangers ever loyal support mustered a 5000 crowd for a game against high-flying Dundee United in the early 80s) had better attendances.
Then came this golden age, which some say we should never turn our back on , regardless of the wrongdoing of the main beneficiaries. Cash flowed into Rangers and Celtic, every gloryhound in every provinical town decided to support one or the other, depending on which version of the doctrine of an imaginary bloke their ancestors belived in and support for everyone else drove of. Mediocre international stars came in and enjoyed wonderful salaries and limited taxes. It got to the point where supporting anyone outside the old firm was pointless. Crowds fell. If you got a half decent young player the Okd Firm would reliably snap them up, pay them triple and stick them in the reserves. And your club would accept that, because they needed the dosh to stay afloat. Probably most significantly, Scotland's best footballing product - the canny Presbyterian scholars of the game started cutting their teeth elsewhere. The days of Jim McLean or Alex Ferguson managing provincial sides to glory was gone, because no matter how good you were you couldn't attain glory with no cash, no fans,no TV money, against a bunch of cheats.
Now, the national team is a complete joke. The days where Spain or France at Hampden was considered, at worst, very winnable, are long since gone. Now sneaking a home win against Iceland is seen as a decent result. At club level Finnish part timers represent an insurmountable hurdle for all except the big two (and even them sometimes too).
I really can't buy that a few years of a competitive league wouldn't get everyone interested again and give a development opportunity to youth. It lacks imagination and historical perspective to say that an SPL without Rangers isn't viable. Fair enough if that's what anyone thinks but lets not pretend that football hasn't turned into the most tawdry short termist money grabbing exercise, if that is the case.
If Rangers get relegated to the bottom of their leagues of course Scottish football won't die. Rangers will gain consecutive promotions and be back up there in four seasons. The money generated by their travelling fans will just be spread out to a few different clubs than usual for a few seasons. Rangers need to be seen to be punished and for footballs sake I hope they are. Same goes for any other football club, English or Scottish that cheats all and sundry in order to succeed.
Fair enough Morts and you know more about it than me but your last sentence sums up what i think and that's my main point....it's a different world from the 80s and it is ALL about the money involved and id worry about what would happen when the money goes out of it.
The best talent up there would just move down south surely as most players nowdays have a mercenary aspect to their careers and the league would be made up of what's left?
I guess the argument about Sky pulling out will depend on the length of contract they have. If Sky have three years left then relegating Rangers two divisions would mean that they would be back before Sky renegotiate the new deal.
Due to the sums of money involved I think more punishment needs to be dished out than the administration of winding up one company and forming another. The company that currently owns the season ticket sales for the next season (or more - I don't know) could seek further action. It might even be an illegal act to sell tickets for a business that, it could be argued, was going to have to go down this road, or one just like it, at some point in the future. Maybe they would be able to negotiate with the SPL for them to receive all season ticket income until their contract comes to an end - but I doubt it!
If HMRC manage to extract vast sums from the directors and recover most of what is owed then I'm more than happy for Rangers to have their suffering reduced, but if not I think the message for any future club that proposes to 'knock' the Tax Payer these kind of sums of money should be total oblivion. I'd knock the stadium down and disband the club and prevent it from ever reforming. it's not that I don't care about Scottish Football, but either Scottish Football pay for Rangers debt or they learn to live without them.
Needless to say what will happen is that Rangers will reform and they will be debt free and financial institutions will, based on their revenues, lend them millions and millions to spend on transfer fees and wages and they will be stronger, both in terms of playing staff and financial situation, than Celtic within a few seasons.
Really needs to be a change in the law, to allow creditors to continue to receive payment over and above any initial payout if a business is pre-packaged and able to carry on like this.
For football clubs perhaps, for example, in future years, they (the creditors) should be entitled to a percentage of season ticket sales and player transfer fee receipts. Regular, intensive auditing of "new club's" accounts and perhaps more stringent requirements than the incoming financial fair play rules for a number of years. TV revenues to be paid to the liquidator/administrator or football authority. They have all the details of the creditors already, so could then distribute cash directly to them.
Other than that, suppliers, including other clubs, should only deal with clubs on an upfront payment basis. Huge shift in the thought process of how these businesses operate and for fans to getting used to the idea of cutting their cloth. In actual fact, I think most small/lower end clubs and fans would understand this infintely more than those with their heads in the sand about a belief that they have a right/entitlement to be winning trophies on a regular basis.
As has been said by a few above, I wouldn't want to see any fan lose their club. I know how I would feel if it were Charlton.
However, we all need to be realistic about where we are (both in the wider scale of the global economy and the strngth/viability of our own clubs and the "operating model" that they employ) and perhaps it will encourage more oversight and fan's groups involvement in clubs to protect the long-term interests for the local communities.
We can talk about the possible negative effect on communities in losing their club but, on the other hand, it is often the businesses in those communities that are most affected by non-payment of bills for services/goods provided and many will not be in a position to ride out the non-payment or loss of such a client....hence the up-front payment suggestion above.
Just a few thoughts and I know that circumstances differ for individual cases and will dictate what can and can't be possible.
Fair enough Morts and you know more about it than me but your last sentence sums up what i think and that's my main point....it's a different world from the 80s and it is ALL about the money involved and id worry about what would happen when the money goes out of it.
The best talent up there would just move down south surely as most players nowdays have a mercenary aspect to their careers and the league would be made up of what's left?
Well, when Scottish sides were decent in europe and at national level most top English sides had a number of key Scottish players - John Robertson, Alan Hansen, Andy Gray, John Wark, George Burley, Souness, Dalglish, Buchan, Hartford, Strachan, Bremner, McQueen, Jordan, the Grays... I could go on. Not sure what's changed apart from that support for provincial teams has dropped to almost nothing and everyone is squabbling for crumbs off the Sky table.
Fair enough Morts and you know more about it than me but your last sentence sums up what i think and that's my main point....it's a different world from the 80s and it is ALL about the money involved and id worry about what would happen when the money goes out of it.
The best talent up there would just move down south surely as most players nowdays have a mercenary aspect to their careers and the league would be made up of what's left?
Well, when Scottish sides were decent in europe and at national level most top English sides had a number of key Scottish players - John Robertson, Alan Hansen, Andy Gray, John Wark, George Burley, Souness, Dalglish, Buchan, Hartford, Strachan, Bremner, McQueen, Jordan, the Grays... I could go on. Not sure what's changed apart from that support for provincial teams has dropped to almost nothing and everyone is squabbling for crumbs off the Sky table.
Is it not possible that with the Premier having the resources (combined with the global football world) to bring players in from all over the world they no longer need to sign the best that Scotland has to offer? I would imagine that the average Scottish youngster can make as much, if not more, with a career in professional football in the SPL (excluding the Old Firm) than they could in the 1980s.
Thus there must be as much incentive to become a professional footballer now as there was then. What I'm getting at is that I doubt there are a group of potential talented young boys being missed out on. Maybe they just don't have as many talented players in this generation. Maybe the problem is with the wealth of the Premier League. Maybe it is due to the strength of the two top sides, but with Barcelona and Real Madrid, Spain seem to have managed ok.
I'm not convinced the SLP wil come good again for the lowly teams. Capitalism is very hard to turn back on.
You could almost replace this with Scottish politics and state that all Scotland needs to be great again is to gain indpendance because Maggie took the oil away so breaking away from England will bring it back again.
In England, there are several giant clubs, so if one went down the plughole, the league would continue quite happily. It would still attract massive crowds and tv audiences around the world.
An SPL with no Rangers would be a strange affair, I can't imagine the tv audiences to watch Celtic win by 20 points at a canter would be terribly high. Having said that, a crippled Rangers full of youth players and low paid (by English standards) free transfers in the SPL would be no competititon anyway to Celtic!
Agree with Killerand flash if Rangers go down the tube within 5 years the SPL will have gone with it and the top 2-3 teams will be playing the Football league or die!
I have copied and pasted an article I read in the build up to the Champions League final where, among other things, it points out how in Germany clubs are not seen as competing businesses but are all inter-dependent and all clubs contribute to a central fund to help clubs that get into financial difficulty.
This season’s Champions League final was always supposed to be a clash of cultures. It just wasn’t supposed to be this one.
As soon as the game’s great and good gathered in Monaco for the draw for the group stage nine months ago, it was decreed that, by May 19 in Munich, Barcelona’s homespun sorcerers would stand toe-to-toe with the glistening, shop-bought superstars of Real Madrid. It was not to be. What the tournament has produced in its stead, though, will be just as fascinating, in a footballing sense, and perhaps just as seismic, in a philosophical sense. Chelsea and Bayern Munich may not share the antipathy that poisons relations between the titans of La Liga, but they possess something equally intriguing: an antithesis.
Chelsea are the team of the Premier League era. That is not an insult. Few clubs used the influx of foreign talent, in the mid to late 1990s, to better effect; even fewer have built their brand so exponentially in far-flung corners of the globe; no side, not even their spiritual heirs, Manchester City, have benefited quite so much from the largesse of an overseas benefactor.
Owned entirely by one man, Roman Abramovich, they are reliant on his generosity in underwriting the debts accrued by their expensive playing squad and sacking of managers, so frequent as to be careless.
Bayern, by contrast, stand as the archetype of the much sought-after German model. In one newspaper last week, a City fan, concerned at his team’s over-reliance on Abu Dhabi’s generosity, bemoaned that clubs simply could not be run by one of the two ideals: by supporters themselves, or “like the Germans”.
Bayern are 82 per cent owned by the fans. Ticket prices are as low as €15 (about £12) in “safe standing” areas of the sleek, ultra-modern Allianz Arena, the shortfall in profits made up for by aggressive commercial and marketing policies; there are very few things invented by man that Bayern have yet to emblazon with their crest.
It is the same at all of their Bundesliga peers. Members pay a fee per year — normally about €50 — and are granted a host of rights in exchange: cheap tickets, subsidised away travel and, most important of all, a say in how their clubs are run. All teams in Germany hold annual meetings in which fans have the right to vote on the performance of their management boards. Many afford supporters a voice on the board.
“There are two key differences between the two countries,” says Antonia Hagemann, the head of European development at Supporters Direct, an organisation hoping to promote the lessons English football can learn from Germany. “One is that, in Germany, clubs are not seen solely as businesses that can be exposed to the open market. They are viewed as social and cultural institutions. They are too important to be left open to the vagaries of one man.
“The second is that it is accepted that all of the clubs in the league need each other to survive. They are not competing companies, like two rival coffee shop chains. On the high street, if your rival goes bust, it is good for you. In football, it is bad. Clubs are interdependent.”
That status as something more than a business is enshrined not only in the statutes of the DFB, the German football federation, but in the country’s laws. “There is a stringent licensing system,” says Hagemann, a slightly lapsed member at Werder Bremen. “German clubs are monitored consistently and their finances are checked twice a year. If there is any sign of risk, there is a further regulatory framework.”
Should any club slip through the net, spending beyond their means or mismanaging their finances, there is even a security account — which every member team pays into — that can be accessed in emergencies.That, Hagemann says, is typical of the differences between the two nations. “In England regulation is often seen as interference, as a threat. In Germany they see it more as good practice.
“But regulation is required in England, and also the rest of Europe, which is why Uefa introduced Financial Fair Play — to help football clubs to be run sustainably.”
The introduction of stricter regulations, including a licensing system and even, according to Ben Shave, the Supporters Direct development officer, promoting the ownership of clubs by supporters, and registering them as Industrial and Provident Societies, monitored by the Financial Services Authority, should be considered.
“There is a feeling that member-owned clubs cannot be successful,” Shave says. “But that can be disproven by Barcelona, Benfica, Athletic Bilbao and, to a lesser extent, Swansea, who have fan representation on their board.
“The Premier League’s stance on ownership is ‘neutral’. That basically means that money talks. But we are seeing more and more fans come to us concerned with the direction their clubs are going. We now have 170 supporters’ trusts up and down the country, each influencing their team in some way. Through issuing community shares — which could allow them to invest in their clubs — more and more can hope to have a real say in the way they’re run. Lessons are being learnt.”
Rivals by the numbers
£258m Bayern’s revenue in the 2010-11 season, to Chelsea’s £201 million
135m Estimated number of Chelsea fans worldwide, to Bayern’s 24 million
69,000 Bayern Munich’s average league attendance this season. Chelsea’s was 41,478
£142m Chelsea’s net transfer spending over past four years, to Bayern’s £112 million
£595 Cheapest adult season ticket at Chelsea, to £110 at Bayern
And this article demonstrates how successful the German model is for their club football!
More fans than the Barclays Premier League, more money than La Liga, more places in the Champions League than Serie A: whether Bayern Munich beat Chelsea to lift Europe’s most coveted trophy on home territory next month or not, there can be no doubt that the Bundesliga, on and off the pitch, is booming.
Germany’s top flight has long been held up as a sort of antithesis to the covetous capitalism of its English counterpart: this is the land of subsidised season tickets for the most loyal supporters, of free rail travel for away games, of safe standing areas in space-age stadiums and, most crucially of all, of clubs majority owned by their ultimate stakeholders, the fans. For those who are critical of modern football, the Bundesliga has long represented another way.
That, though, tells only half the story. The German model is also a resounding commercial success. Last year, for the seventh season in a row, the 18 clubs comprising the Bundesliga posted record revenues, generating almost €2 billion (about £1.6 billion) during the campaign in ticket, merchandise and rights sales.
“The Bundesliga is already the second league in terms of revenues, behind the Premier League,” Christian Seifert, the division’s chief executive, said. Note the already: there is more to come. The Bundesliga is already the best attended football league in the world — only the NFL outstrips the German top flight when all sports are considered – with 94 per cent of games sold out. An average of 42,101 fans paid to see games last season.
Generous ticket prices, however — at about €20 for a top-flight match — mean that revenues must be driven, to use the parlance, elsewhere. And it is here that the Bundesliga is beginning to flex its muscles.
Between 2013 and 2017, Sky Deutschland will pay more than €628 million per year for rights to games from both tiers of the Bundesliga, one and a half times the current rate.
“This is a milestone in the history of the Bundesliga,” Uli Hoeness, Bayern’s chief executive, said after the deal was announced. “This is the result of the positive development of the league in recent years. It is also a win for the clubs, who can continue to become more competitive in the Champions League and Europa League.”
Not least, of course, because their opportunities to sample European combat are expanding. For the first time next season, four German sides will enter the Champions League, after Bayern’s run to the final in 2010, Schalke’s presence in last year’s semi-finals and the country’s consistently strong performance in the Europa League allowed the Bundesliga to leapfrog Serie A in Uefa’s coefficient ranking.
Borussia Dortmund, Bayern and Schalke will be placed in the group stage, while Borussia Mönchengladbach will join them if they can hold on to fourth place and then navigate a qualifying tie in August.
It is not all about money, glory and grandeur, though. “We are used to a spirit of co-operation,” says Raphael Honigstein, a football writer with Süddeutsche Zeitung. “Since the Second World War, we have been a nation of coalition governments. We know how to make compromises.” As for the country, so for the football.
After the abysmal performance of Erich Ribbeck’s side’s in Euro 2000, the German Football Association, together with the Bundesliga’s constituent clubs, hatched a plan to invest millions in youth development. The result: Dortmund’s Mario Götze, Mönchengladbach’s Marco Reus, Bayern’s Toni Kroos, Real Madrid’s Mesut Özil, and many more.
“Euro 2000 was the low point,” Honigstein says. “Something had to change. Now we have a league where the fans identify with teams full of young players and the national team benefits, too.”
Do the German clubs own (and did they pay to build) their stadia? I would imagine that if a Public organisation had build The Valley for us we would have been able to charge less for tickets.
That aside, the issue we have is that the clubs that would most need to buy into this type of league structure for it to work would never agree to do so.
Germany has a lot of 'better practices' than the rest of the world, but the cultures in those other countries prevent them from following suit.
Cheers Red...two very good pieces there. Would love to think that we could see the "German model" brought into far wider use to ensure that clubs are run and preserved for their fans. A long way to go here (and in Scotland), but the FAPL/FL should be looking at this. They have tried to mirror the French with the new academy at Burton and would do well to get clubs moving along these lines too.
Wouldn't hold out much hope for free away rail travel though!! Out train operating companies already try to price us out of following our clubs!!
Comments
This isn't aimed at you specifically but I'd stake my mortgage that a lot of posters would view things less sympathetically if it were the other club involved.
I still think the knock on effect of relegating one of the old firm would hurt the other clubs more in the long term. I cant see SKY pouring money into the league when youll have Celtic and then poss the Edinburgh teams trailing in a poor second.
I think its wrong but just think that removing one of the OF would be detrimental to what is already little more than a pub league for neutrals.
I cant remember the last time i watched a Scottish game not involving Celtic or Rangers other than the Cup final recently and can imagine most would say the same.
I don't like to see any football club die as they all have fans but Glasgow Rangers shouldn't get preferential treatment.
In the long run if other clubs have the opportunity to progress because of Rangers' problems Scottish football as a whole might benefit.
The irony is that if both the Old Firms were relegated it would actually make the SPL a lot more competitive and the remaining clubs could improve, attract the best players and get better overall in time.
As it stands if Rangers get relegated then Celtic will lose their biggest rival on the pitch but also perhaps more importantly off it in terms of signing players. Celtic would be unrivalled in spending power and would probably walk the league each season making it even harder for the other clubs to catch them as they would get stronger each season.
Perhaps a Hibs/Hearts/ Aberdeen could finish second but wouldnt likely have the spending power to buy squads capable of seriously competing in Europe (when you look how the OF still struggle despite years of experience and wealth accumulation).
Id say the last couple of Premiership seasons down here have been so good because there have been 4- 6 teams seriously in contention rather than the previous Man utd/ Arsenal or more recent Man utd/ Chelsea dominance.
I think by reducing the competition in the SPL even further by getting rid of one half of the OF powerhouse will actually make for a less competitive league and damage scottish fitba even more.
As an alternative, maybe this actually makes the league more interesting to Sky? Instead of the usual predictable SPL year after year, in effect they will be able to show Rangers in a cup final every week resulting in them (almost certainly) getting promoted. Maybe they would actually sell more subscriptions off the back of it?
Then came this golden age, which some say we should never turn our back on , regardless of the wrongdoing of the main beneficiaries. Cash flowed into Rangers and Celtic, every gloryhound in every provinical town decided to support one or the other, depending on which version of the doctrine of an imaginary bloke their ancestors belived in and support for everyone else drove of. Mediocre international stars came in and enjoyed wonderful salaries and limited taxes. It got to the point where supporting anyone outside the old firm was pointless. Crowds fell. If you got a half decent young player the Okd Firm would reliably snap them up, pay them triple and stick them in the reserves. And your club would accept that, because they needed the dosh to stay afloat. Probably most significantly, Scotland's best footballing product - the canny Presbyterian scholars of the game started cutting their teeth elsewhere. The days of Jim McLean or Alex Ferguson managing provincial sides to glory was gone, because no matter how good you were you couldn't attain glory with no cash, no fans,no TV money, against a bunch of cheats.
Now, the national team is a complete joke. The days where Spain or France at Hampden was considered, at worst, very winnable, are long since gone. Now sneaking a home win against Iceland is seen as a decent result. At club level Finnish part timers represent an insurmountable hurdle for all except the big two (and even them sometimes too).
I really can't buy that a few years of a competitive league wouldn't get everyone interested again and give a development opportunity to youth. It lacks imagination and historical perspective to say that an SPL without Rangers isn't viable. Fair enough if that's what anyone thinks but lets not pretend that football hasn't turned into the most tawdry short termist money grabbing exercise, if that is the case.
The best talent up there would just move down south surely as most players nowdays have a mercenary aspect to their careers and the league would be made up of what's left?
Due to the sums of money involved I think more punishment needs to be dished out than the administration of winding up one company and forming another. The company that currently owns the season ticket sales for the next season (or more - I don't know) could seek further action. It might even be an illegal act to sell tickets for a business that, it could be argued, was going to have to go down this road, or one just like it, at some point in the future. Maybe they would be able to negotiate with the SPL for them to receive all season ticket income until their contract comes to an end - but I doubt it!
If HMRC manage to extract vast sums from the directors and recover most of what is owed then I'm more than happy for Rangers to have their suffering reduced, but if not I think the message for any future club that proposes to 'knock' the Tax Payer these kind of sums of money should be total oblivion. I'd knock the stadium down and disband the club and prevent it from ever reforming. it's not that I don't care about Scottish Football, but either Scottish Football pay for Rangers debt or they learn to live without them.
Needless to say what will happen is that Rangers will reform and they will be debt free and financial institutions will, based on their revenues, lend them millions and millions to spend on transfer fees and wages and they will be stronger, both in terms of playing staff and financial situation, than Celtic within a few seasons.
For football clubs perhaps, for example, in future years, they (the creditors) should be entitled to a percentage of season ticket sales and player transfer fee receipts. Regular, intensive auditing of "new club's" accounts and perhaps more stringent requirements than the incoming financial fair play rules for a number of years. TV revenues to be paid to the liquidator/administrator or football authority. They have all the details of the creditors already, so could then distribute cash directly to them.
Other than that, suppliers, including other clubs, should only deal with clubs on an upfront payment basis. Huge shift in the thought process of how these businesses operate and for fans to getting used to the idea of cutting their cloth. In actual fact, I think most small/lower end clubs and fans would understand this infintely more than those with their heads in the sand about a belief that they have a right/entitlement to be winning trophies on a regular basis.
As has been said by a few above, I wouldn't want to see any fan lose their club. I know how I would feel if it were Charlton.
However, we all need to be realistic about where we are (both in the wider scale of the global economy and the strngth/viability of our own clubs and the "operating model" that they employ) and perhaps it will encourage more oversight and fan's groups involvement in clubs to protect the long-term interests for the local communities.
We can talk about the possible negative effect on communities in losing their club but, on the other hand, it is often the businesses in those communities that are most affected by non-payment of bills for services/goods provided and many will not be in a position to ride out the non-payment or loss of such a client....hence the up-front payment suggestion above.
Just a few thoughts and I know that circumstances differ for individual cases and will dictate what can and can't be possible.
Thus there must be as much incentive to become a professional footballer now as there was then. What I'm getting at is that I doubt there are a group of potential talented young boys being missed out on. Maybe they just don't have as many talented players in this generation. Maybe the problem is with the wealth of the Premier League. Maybe it is due to the strength of the two top sides, but with Barcelona and Real Madrid, Spain seem to have managed ok.
You could almost replace this with Scottish politics and state that all Scotland needs to be great again is to gain indpendance because Maggie took the oil away so breaking away from England will bring it back again.
Some clocks simply can not be turned back.
An SPL with no Rangers would be a strange affair, I can't imagine the tv audiences to watch Celtic win by 20 points at a canter would be terribly high. Having said that, a crippled Rangers full of youth players and low paid (by English standards) free transfers in the SPL would be no competititon anyway to Celtic!
This season’s Champions League final was always supposed to be a clash of cultures. It just wasn’t supposed to be this one.
As soon as the game’s great and good gathered in Monaco for the draw for the group stage nine months ago, it was decreed that, by May 19 in Munich, Barcelona’s homespun sorcerers would stand toe-to-toe with the glistening, shop-bought superstars of Real Madrid. It was not to be. What the tournament has produced in its stead, though, will be just as fascinating, in a footballing sense, and perhaps just as seismic, in a philosophical sense. Chelsea and Bayern Munich may not share the antipathy that poisons relations between the titans of La Liga, but they possess something equally intriguing: an antithesis.
Chelsea are the team of the Premier League era. That is not an insult. Few clubs used the influx of foreign talent, in the mid to late 1990s, to better effect; even fewer have built their brand so exponentially in far-flung corners of the globe; no side, not even their spiritual heirs, Manchester City, have benefited quite so much from the largesse of an overseas benefactor.
Owned entirely by one man, Roman Abramovich, they are reliant on his generosity in underwriting the debts accrued by their expensive playing squad and sacking of managers, so frequent as to be careless.
Bayern, by contrast, stand as the archetype of the much sought-after German model. In one newspaper last week, a City fan, concerned at his team’s over-reliance on Abu Dhabi’s generosity, bemoaned that clubs simply could not be run by one of the two ideals: by supporters themselves, or “like the Germans”.
Bayern are 82 per cent owned by the fans. Ticket prices are as low as €15 (about £12) in “safe standing” areas of the sleek, ultra-modern Allianz Arena, the shortfall in profits made up for by aggressive commercial and marketing policies; there are very few things invented by man that Bayern have yet to emblazon with their crest.
It is the same at all of their Bundesliga peers. Members pay a fee per year — normally about €50 — and are granted a host of rights in exchange: cheap tickets, subsidised away travel and, most important of all, a say in how their clubs are run. All teams in Germany hold annual meetings in which fans have the right to vote on the performance of their management boards. Many afford supporters a voice on the board.
“There are two key differences between the two countries,” says Antonia Hagemann, the head of European development at Supporters Direct, an organisation hoping to promote the lessons English football can learn from Germany. “One is that, in Germany, clubs are not seen solely as businesses that can be exposed to the open market. They are viewed as social and cultural institutions. They are too important to be left open to the vagaries of one man.
“The second is that it is accepted that all of the clubs in the league need each other to survive. They are not competing companies, like two rival coffee shop chains. On the high street, if your rival goes bust, it is good for you. In football, it is bad. Clubs are interdependent.”
That status as something more than a business is enshrined not only in the statutes of the DFB, the German football federation, but in the country’s laws. “There is a stringent licensing system,” says Hagemann, a slightly lapsed member at Werder Bremen. “German clubs are monitored consistently and their finances are checked twice a year. If there is any sign of risk, there is a further regulatory framework.”
Should any club slip through the net, spending beyond their means or mismanaging their finances, there is even a security account — which every member team pays into — that can be accessed in emergencies.That, Hagemann says, is typical of the differences between the two nations. “In England regulation is often seen as interference, as a threat. In Germany they see it more as good practice.
“But regulation is required in England, and also the rest of Europe, which is why Uefa introduced Financial Fair Play — to help football clubs to be run sustainably.”
The introduction of stricter regulations, including a licensing system and even, according to Ben Shave, the Supporters Direct development officer, promoting the ownership of clubs by supporters, and registering them as Industrial and Provident Societies, monitored by the Financial Services Authority, should be considered.
“There is a feeling that member-owned clubs cannot be successful,” Shave says. “But that can be disproven by Barcelona, Benfica, Athletic Bilbao and, to a lesser extent, Swansea, who have fan representation on their board.
“The Premier League’s stance on ownership is ‘neutral’. That basically means that money talks. But we are seeing more and more fans come to us concerned with the direction their clubs are going. We now have 170 supporters’ trusts up and down the country, each influencing their team in some way. Through issuing community shares — which could allow them to invest in their clubs — more and more can hope to have a real say in the way they’re run. Lessons are being learnt.”
Rivals by the numbers
£258m Bayern’s revenue in the 2010-11 season, to Chelsea’s £201 million
135m Estimated number of Chelsea fans worldwide, to Bayern’s 24 million
69,000 Bayern Munich’s average league attendance this season. Chelsea’s was 41,478
£142m Chelsea’s net transfer spending over past four years, to Bayern’s £112 million
£595 Cheapest adult season ticket at Chelsea, to £110 at Bayern
More fans than the Barclays Premier League, more money than La Liga, more places in the Champions League than Serie A: whether Bayern Munich beat Chelsea to lift Europe’s most coveted trophy on home territory next month or not, there can be no doubt that the Bundesliga, on and off the pitch, is booming.
Germany’s top flight has long been held up as a sort of antithesis to the covetous capitalism of its English counterpart: this is the land of subsidised season tickets for the most loyal supporters, of free rail travel for away games, of safe standing areas in space-age stadiums and, most crucially of all, of clubs majority owned by their ultimate stakeholders, the fans. For those who are critical of modern football, the Bundesliga has long represented another way.
That, though, tells only half the story. The German model is also a resounding commercial success. Last year, for the seventh season in a row, the 18 clubs comprising the Bundesliga posted record revenues, generating almost €2 billion (about £1.6 billion) during the campaign in ticket, merchandise and rights sales.
“The Bundesliga is already the second league in terms of revenues, behind the Premier League,” Christian Seifert, the division’s chief executive, said. Note the already: there is more to come. The Bundesliga is already the best attended football league in the world — only the NFL outstrips the German top flight when all sports are considered – with 94 per cent of games sold out. An average of 42,101 fans paid to see games last season.
Generous ticket prices, however — at about €20 for a top-flight match — mean that revenues must be driven, to use the parlance, elsewhere. And it is here that the Bundesliga is beginning to flex its muscles.
Between 2013 and 2017, Sky Deutschland will pay more than €628 million per year for rights to games from both tiers of the Bundesliga, one and a half times the current rate.
“This is a milestone in the history of the Bundesliga,” Uli Hoeness, Bayern’s chief executive, said after the deal was announced. “This is the result of the positive development of the league in recent years. It is also a win for the clubs, who can continue to become more competitive in the Champions League and Europa League.”
Not least, of course, because their opportunities to sample European combat are expanding. For the first time next season, four German sides will enter the Champions League, after Bayern’s run to the final in 2010, Schalke’s presence in last year’s semi-finals and the country’s consistently strong performance in the Europa League allowed the Bundesliga to leapfrog Serie A in Uefa’s coefficient ranking.
Borussia Dortmund, Bayern and Schalke will be placed in the group stage, while Borussia Mönchengladbach will join them if they can hold on to fourth place and then navigate a qualifying tie in August.
It is not all about money, glory and grandeur, though. “We are used to a spirit of co-operation,” says Raphael Honigstein, a football writer with Süddeutsche Zeitung. “Since the Second World War, we have been a nation of coalition governments. We know how to make compromises.” As for the country, so for the football.
After the abysmal performance of Erich Ribbeck’s side’s in Euro 2000, the German Football Association, together with the Bundesliga’s constituent clubs, hatched a plan to invest millions in youth development. The result: Dortmund’s Mario Götze, Mönchengladbach’s Marco Reus, Bayern’s Toni Kroos, Real Madrid’s Mesut Özil, and many more.
“Euro 2000 was the low point,” Honigstein says. “Something had to change. Now we have a league where the fans identify with teams full of young players and the national team benefits, too.”
The boom is not about to end any time soon.
That aside, the issue we have is that the clubs that would most need to buy into this type of league structure for it to work would never agree to do so.
Germany has a lot of 'better practices' than the rest of the world, but the cultures in those other countries prevent them from following suit.
Wouldn't hold out much hope for free away rail travel though!! Out train operating companies already try to price us out of following our clubs!!