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.
The thing is that there's not the attraction in being an SPL player now that there was then. It was - at worst a staging post for a move to England or Europe that just rarely happens now. I grew up giving a shit what happened in the SPL, I doubt kids do now. Even if you support Rangers or Celtic, it must be tedious just putting teams to the sword. There's probably still some base level of talent, but I believe the fact is that the aspirations of most Scottish players has become to get picked up by one of the old firm and pick up a fat contract dicking around in their reserve side. The likes of Hansen bailed out on Partick at the first opportunity, but he was at least going somewhere brilliant.
I do think that there's some merit in questioning whether the globalisation of the premiership has lead to a weakening of Scottish football by removing an opportunity. But Ireland have actually improved over the same period. And that doesn't explain why Scots club sides have gotten so poor. I don't think the Spanish argument holds good, because it's a much bigger country and there's a fairer division of the spoils - Barca are maybe 3 or 4 times the size of the next biggest team, not hundreds of times. As you say KHA it could just be a pish poor generation, but it's been going on a long while now, and started more or less at the point that Rangers and then Celtic went from being the number one and two in the league through financial muscle to dominating it completely, getting all of the TV coverage and being the biggest team in every town. Which is where I came in really: the assertion that the league would die without Rangers at least needs to be questioned: because the league and the national game was pretty good when Rangers were crap and getting shitey little crowds.
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.
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.
My issue is non payment of tax and businesses that are allowed to be be liquiidated and then are reformed with relatively little compensation for the creditors. And you are right the kicking out of Rangers does not changhe the rules, but then I can also be a vindictive git.
@Kings Hill Addick re Sky contract - apparently the contract includes a clause requiring 4 Old Firm games per annum, so I assume that Sky could pull out if they are not provided with this.
@Kings Hill Addick re Sky contract - apparently the contract includes a clause requiring 4 Old Firm games per annum, so I assume that Sky could pull out if they are not provided with this.
I didn't know that but, on reflection, I suppose it was obvious that Sky would protect themselves like that.
Assume for a moment that Rangers are relegated, therefore preventing the required number of Old Firm matches taking place and resulting in Sky pulling out. Does anyone else think that this might actually be a good thing in the long run for Scottish football? Losing the Sky money would be a nightmare for Celtic but could it not level the playing field and create an actual league as opposed to the current arrangement which seems to benefit only the Old Firm clubs?
Scottish football is celtic v rangers, without it its going to suffer,the clubs who vote not to keep them in the premier may rue the day,when few years down the line they get no loans of rangers
Scottish football is celtic v rangers, without it its going to suffer,the clubs who vote not to keep them in the premier may rue the day,when few years down the line they get no loans off rangers
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.
My issue is non payment of tax and businesses that are allowed to be be liquiidated and then are reformed with relatively little compensation for the creditors. And you are right the kicking out of Rangers does not changhe the rules, but then I can also be a vindictive git.
@Kings Hill Addick re Sky contract - apparently the contract includes a clause requiring 4 Old Firm games per annum, so I assume that Sky could pull out if they are not provided with this.
Kap10 HMRC may have missed out on millions because of Rangers, but they are making up for it. I got a letter from the HMRC today demanding that I pay them £459.23 in full at the earliest opportunity or they will be taking legal action against me.
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.
My issue is non payment of tax and businesses that are allowed to be be liquiidated and then are reformed with relatively little compensation for the creditors. And you are right the kicking out of Rangers does not changhe the rules, but then I can also be a vindictive git.
@Kings Hill Addick re Sky contract - apparently the contract includes a clause requiring 4 Old Firm games per annum, so I assume that Sky could pull out if they are not provided with this.
Kap10 HMRC may have missed out on millions because of Rangers, but they are making up for it. I got a letter from the HMRC today demanding that I pay them £459.23 in full at the earliest opportunity or they will be taking legal action against me.
Assume for a moment that Rangers are relegated, therefore preventing the required number of Old Firm matches taking place and resulting in Sky pulling out. Does anyone else think that this might actually be a good thing in the long run for Scottish football? Losing the Sky money would be a nightmare for Celtic but could it not level the playing field and create an actual league as opposed to the current arrangement which seems to benefit only the Old Firm clubs?
Just thinking out loud...
No. Whilst the Old firm get a significant amount of money from Sky, almost all the games shown on TV are old firm away games, so if Rangers are relegated the smaller teams will lose the money they would have got from Sky and they'll lose the ticket revenue. Their squad will obviously include lots of players who have contracts ranging over the next two to three years, the salaries included in these will have been agreed on the presumption that there would have been at least one Rangers home game and some money from Sky. Most Scottish clubs are in a perilous financial position already, the real downside of any decision to relegate Rangers would be the likely financial collapse of one or more teams because of the associated reduction in revenue.
There really is no financial or footballing upside to the relegation of Rangers, other than the novelty pf seeing them in the third division, which will be very disappointing to the many who want to see blood.
Sooner or later a corrupt tax dodging cheating football club needs to be given a bloody nose by the tax man on behalf of non tax dodging non cheating public. The inefficiencies and unfairness of how Scottish football cares to run itself and distribute its collective money should not enter into it.
Naismith and Whittaker now the latest to say they won't be transferring over to the Newco. Not fussed about Whittaker but Naismith has had very serious injuries on several occasions whilst at the club. The least he could have done was transfer over and then left so the club could at least get a transfer fee for him to repay all that has been expended on his rehabilitation.
Speaking to a Celtic fan last night, he does not want them relegated mainly due to the lack of competition for the next three seasons. Apparently the TV deal has four years to run, which is rather convenient. Even if Sky have the "old firm derby get out clause" I think they would be making a big mistake PR wise if they did pull out. They could insist that the SPL hand over more cash to the SFL and show a dozen Rangers games a season as they march through the leagues?
I like what Morts says and I think everyone in Scotland knows that Scottish football needs a change of direction, even the Old Firm who are bleating for admission down here. Relegation might be a boost to the game up there.
Naismith and Whittaker now the latest to say they won't be transferring over to the Newco. Not fussed about Whittaker but Naismith has had very serious injuries on several occasions whilst at the club. The least he could have done was transfer over and then left so the club could at least get a transfer fee for him to repay all that has been expended on his rehabilitation.
But have the club paid all the medical bills or were they part of the CVA?
Naismith and Whittaker now the latest to say they won't be transferring over to the Newco. Not fussed about Whittaker but Naismith has had very serious injuries on several occasions whilst at the club. The least he could have done was transfer over and then left so the club could at least get a transfer fee for him to repay all that has been expended on his rehabilitation.
But have the club paid all the medical bills or were they part of the CVA?
Naismith has had two almost career ending injuries in his five years at the club and was out for most of last season, before last season those bills would certainly have been paid (normally you take out insurance to cover player injuries, Rangers will have paid those premiums) and looking at the list of creditors it seems as though they were again.
My biggest issue with Whittaker and (particuarly) Naismith is that had the liquidation not of occurred they'd still be under contract and thus a transfer fee would be needed for them to move. To use the current situation to walk away for free is simply profiteering at the clubs expense.
You need to remember that these two players signed contracts expecting Rangers to be in the top flight and in European competitions. The former now looks questionable and the latter is not going to happen for at least three seasons.
If they want to play at the highest level, and that was what was 'promised' to them when they signed then they can probably justify it to themselves that they want away.
Also these players requested moves from their smaller clubs to Rangers because there was money and glory in it. Surely we can't be shocked that it turns out that they're a bit self interested.
Plastic pitch,no stands on one end or side,a five a side park behind the goal and a lovely view over a golf course if the fare on the pitch ain't up to much!
Thanks. They were even one of my subuto teams. Mind you sounds like Aldershot a good few years back. went behind the only stand at the end and it was like going being in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe huge park thing ended up in! well someone had turned our players to stone as i remember we lost 3 nil.
As I understand it, all the SPL clubs now have to vote to allow Rangers New Co to take over the place of Rangers in the SPL. Three clubs have already said they will vote against and only one more needs to for it to fial. Then Rangers will have to apply to join the Scottish league at the bottom division. Could they then decide not to apply to the SFA and apply to the English FA to join their division two? Would that be likely to be accepted? Is the whole thing just a really clever way of Rangers getting into the English league without having to apply jointly with Celtic??? Or have I over-thought this way too much?
Comments
I do think that there's some merit in questioning whether the globalisation of the premiership has lead to a weakening of Scottish football by removing an opportunity. But Ireland have actually improved over the same period. And that doesn't explain why Scots club sides have gotten so poor. I don't think the Spanish argument holds good, because it's a much bigger country and there's a fairer division of the spoils - Barca are maybe 3 or 4 times the size of the next biggest team, not hundreds of times. As you say KHA it could just be a pish poor generation, but it's been going on a long while now, and started more or less at the point that Rangers and then Celtic went from being the number one and two in the league through financial muscle to dominating it completely, getting all of the TV coverage and being the biggest team in every town. Which is where I came in really: the assertion that the league would die without Rangers at least needs to be questioned: because the league and the national game was pretty good when Rangers were crap and getting shitey little crowds.
@Kings Hill Addick re Sky contract - apparently the contract includes a clause requiring 4 Old Firm games per annum, so I assume that Sky could pull out if they are not provided with this.
Just thinking out loud...
HMRC may have missed out on millions because of Rangers, but they are making up for it. I got a letter from the HMRC today demanding that I pay them £459.23 in full at the earliest opportunity or they will be taking legal action against me.
There really is no financial or footballing upside to the relegation of Rangers, other than the novelty pf seeing them in the third division, which will be very disappointing to the many who want to see blood.
Lucky escape for us. : - )
Rangers to acquire Charlton
Full list of Rangers creditors (I wouldn't stray to far on that site, there are some disgusting opinions from some posters there) - http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=216171
My biggest issue with Whittaker and (particuarly) Naismith is that had the liquidation not of occurred they'd still be under contract and thus a transfer fee would be needed for them to move. To use the current situation to walk away for free is simply profiteering at the clubs expense.
If they want to play at the highest level, and that was what was 'promised' to them when they signed then they can probably justify it to themselves that they want away.
They were even one of my subuto teams.
Mind you sounds like Aldershot a good few years back. went behind the only stand at the end and it was like going being in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe huge park thing ended up in! well someone had turned our players to stone as i remember we lost 3 nil.
Then Rangers will have to apply to join the Scottish league at the bottom division.
Could they then decide not to apply to the SFA and apply to the English FA to join their division two? Would that be likely to be accepted? Is the whole thing just a really clever way of Rangers getting into the English league without having to apply jointly with Celtic???
Or have I over-thought this way too much?