Q. There will be 12 teams in the SPL next season. How many do you think stand to gain from the redistribution of income proposed by the Gang of 10?
A. 11.
Q. There will be 30 teams in the SFL next season. How many do you think stand to gain from the redistribution of income proposed by the Gang of 10?
A. 30.
Although TV and commercial money will be diluted, it is a sideshow compared to the real cash cow remaining in Scottish football, the gate money at Celtic Park. The Gang of 10 refused to exclude this option from their proposed change in voting rights.
A 20% share of gate money doesn’t have sufficient support from SPL clubs, too many losers. A 30% gate share only has one loser, everyone else wins, including the club who took 87 fans to a league game at Celtic Park last season.
This is nothing to do with Sevco, who are unlikely to pull a financially viable plan together (although the SPL and SFA are still trying). You’re being asked to open your wallets and pay for the upkeep of 42 stadiums, squads, boards of directors and kit men.
This is not a viable plan. It’s time for Scottish football to admit defeat. Sport has been subverted for over a decade to the point there is nothing left. We can keep Hampden and the national team going, but there is no viable league structure. The sooner we accept this and move on the better.
983 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- ...
- 26
- »
jude2005 is Neil Lennon \o/ on 28 June, 2012 at 23:30 said:
Seemingly a dozen eggs were delivered to M P today. Each of the 1st team squad had 2 and the other one had toast.
Ha Ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
deliasmith on 28 June, 2012 at 23:33 said:
If you have read the posts between myself and Kitalba you will see I have tried to find a reference to whether gate money was shared. Do you have any evidence other than a memory that gate money was shared for league games?
Cults Bhoy
I am in the same camp as you, in that I believe Celtic are playing it very cleverly by saying nothing.
Any utterances from our camp will allow the buffoons in the press to turn it into a two sided ‘us v them ‘ scenario.
By giving them enough rope, they have hung themselves.
Back in February I was in Zurich airport at the very moment they announced they were preparing for administration. Within 24 hours they had lost their first battle as the taxman forced administration.
Since then they have had the occasional flickers of survival, but in reality every time they cme up for air, they suffer further wounds.
Who would have predicted that in February they would only have 7 ish players for pre-season.
In th next few weeks, I suspect we will see 2, maybe 3 splits in the Rankers empire, with a stadium company , football company , and a training company emerging. As for the football company , whether thy play in div1 or div 101 , will matter little, as I strongly suspect they will go into administration at least once more, and the journey back will take 7 / 8 years.
By then, many of their followers will have gone elsewhere , and it will be a long recovery.
As for the SFA , they are doing an excellent job of creating a scenario whereby we can exit Scottish football on the legal basis of a market with inadequate corporate governance.
deliasmith on 28 June, 2012 at 23:33 said:
And do you not think that gate-sharing might be one of the reasons for that? Don’t forget, this was a time when gate money was 90 per cent or more of the income – no club shops, very little TV; even the macaroons and chewing gum business was private enterprise. Dunfermline could turn up at Celtic Park, maybe get a result, but usually get beat, and go home with the equivalent of a full house at East End. That helped them be strong enough to beat Valencia, to employ an up and coming manager called Stein.
+++++
Essentially, your business plan then, is to reduce income by giving away a significant percentage of income from the gate receipts and also to remove the equally profitable sources of merchandising and media distribution rights in some distorted nod to half a century ago?
Not sure what to say to that, to be honest. I’m genuinely lost for words.
Dirtymac
I can’t see myself ever being that interested in how Dunfermline get on
Certainly not if their success is due in large part to financial provisions detrimental to CFC
deliasmith,
the rules of cup competition dictate that you give the away team a portion of gate receipts because teams are subject to a draw that makes them either a home or away team so thats quite fair,
but to give teams a portion of league money is ridiculous,these teams bring less than 1% of the attendance at Celtic park but you want us to give 30% of the gate money,sorry but nonsense in my view,
and your arguement that we pay to watch a game is factually correct,but nonsense all the same
Even if gate money was shared pre-Premier Division, we live in a different time. The arguement for sharing it now has not been made, we did it before therefore can do it again is not a very good arguement.
Redistribution of finance may be argued for, but to shoehorn it in at this stage, is nonsense. It is obviously being done for the benefit of one club, not the game in general.
That will make it unacceptable for most football fans in Scotland.
Why? Because the club they are trying to benefit are a brand new club trying to claim the history and traditions of a cheat.
Raymac
Do you really believe, I mean really, that people who disagree with you must be being paid by a PR firm? I mean, seriously? If you paid any attention to what you were reading you’d know that I’ve been posting on this blog since it started, and that I have said on scores of occasions over the past six or seven years that the SPL was a disaster, above all, because it impoverished all the clubs in Scotland bar two; and that attempting to join the English league was such a bad idea it would have to improve 200 per cent to attain futility.
Seriously people: try to raise your game. If you disagree with a point made on the blog – respond to the argument. If I ever participate in discussions on here about leaving Sottish football or gate sharing I know that the majority of responses will include some vulgar abuse, implicit threat, foolish ravings at the level of “classic black ops” (straight out of The Victor that one), and/or speculation about my job, religion or other irrelevance.
ClashCityBhoy
I’m quite relaxed as I think we hold all the Aces. The longer we hold on to them -the less time the ‘authorities’ have to manipulate anything.
I have it on very good authority that Charles Green is way, way out of his depth financially so your prediction is probably correct.
It is unrealistic to expect them to go quietly or quickly…
gordybhoy64
I dont mean to be rude but surely those are the rules for all teams
except the teddy bears as they just keep ALL home cup tie money
Then moan about it if Dundee United ask for what they are entitled too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
gordybhoy64 on 28 June, 2012 at 23:43 said:
deliasmith,
the rules of cup competition dictate that you give the away team a portion of gate receipts because teams are subject to a draw that makes them either a home or away team so thats quite fair,
but to give teams a portion of league money is ridiculous,these teams bring less than 1% of the attendance at Celtic park but you want us to give 30% of the gate money,sorry but nonsense in my view,
and your arguement that we pay to watch a game is factually correct,but nonsense all the same
jc2,
aye no bad pal ;-))
delia
Is there any evidence that football leagues with more equitable sharing of income, regardless of who actually brings in that money, result in improved leagues.
I do not want to be the guinea pig for your back to the 60’s movement, because the money, once given up, is not going to be easily recovered.
as a minor point, you stated earlier that you had spent a decade each in 3 separate English cities. Are you now a regular attender at CP?
deliasmith
“and/or speculation about my job, religion or other irrelevance. ”
When did anyone on this blog EVER make a reference to your religion?
Come to think of it, when did you ever respond to anyone who took the time to address your unusual points?.
Mibbes answer these questions before claiming victimisation again?
Thanks in advance.
We are not paranoid, “Seriously people”,they are still trying to get at us.
They simply can’t argue the pints, nor can they cooks,
Even though their club is dead.
When a fair point is made they simply ignore it.
http://www.thecelticnetwork.com/2012/06/28/generic-letteremail-to-uefa-and-fifa-please-pass-on-to-fans-groups/
….PFayr on 28 June, 2012 at 23:42 said:
Dirtymac
I can’t see myself ever being that interested in how Dunfermline get on
Certainly not if their success is due in large part to financial provisions detrimental to CFC
+++++
Nope, same here. Don’t know where DeliaSmith gets her stuff from. Ideas. Don’t know where it gets it’s ideas from.
Anyone wanting gate sharing should read the research I posted in the last thread where it is shown that skewed leagues must not gate-share to any great extent as it is detrimental to overall productivity of the whole league. The entire ‘product’ will suffer.
And yep, Dunfermline in particular can go sing.
Tom McLaughlin on 28 June, 2012 at 14:12 said:
Tom
Don`t know if you`re up and about just now,but I hope you are.because I want to thank you for your contribution above.
There are many views within the Celtic community,and that community will remain fiercely all inclusive in spite of what some think and say.
I suppose you will have read Awe Naw`s response at 14.16.Quite the most vicious thing I have ever read on C.Q.N.
The use of “bad language ” on C.Q.N.is usually forbidden for the very good reason that ” children read this site”
What was said to you was worse than the worst of bad language,imho, not to mention earlier references to “SCOTTISH SCUM.”
Finally,hope you will feel able to respond to this,or at least t that I
Doc is Neil Lennon – Gate sharing: It is obviously being done for the benefit of one club,
Doc (if I may) – think, hard.
Gate sharing is a benefit to any club which has relatively small home attendance. It is a handicap to clubs with big home attendances…
Now, this one club you suspect the gate sharing is intended to benefit – if it ever got going over in Govan there – do you think it would have bigger home attendances than most? And, by the way, do you think it would be comfortable, in its highly precarious financial state, handing over a six-figure cheque every fortnight?
And I notice that DeliaSmith, whilst requesting reasoned responses to it’s posts, cherry-picked one part from mine earlier, but failed to address either the rest of the post or even the context of the part cherry-picked.
Gate-sharing reduces the need to ‘home-grow’ talent at smaller clubs and is directly detrimental to the bigger ones.
It’s lose-lose.
The huns seem to think Dundee United were one of the worst offenders
kicking them when they were down and they haven’t forgiven them for being pig headed and not selling Goodwillie as ” Whyte offered more than Blackburn with the add ons”
gordybhoy64 on 28 June, 2012 at 23:51 said:
jc2,
aye no bad pal ;-))
delia
“Doc (if I may) – think, hard.”
See it is the little touches like that, and your inflated sense of intellectual superiority, with little supporting evidence, that makes it hard to warm to your campaign.
You have hit on a formula for saving Scottish football and you are convinced of its merits but, beyond an aspiration to return to mythical glory days you have not supplied any evidence of causation in the factors you are espousing.
Dirtymac
With gate sharing mediocre players at mediocre teams getting wages their talents don’t deserve … All courtesy of CFC fans paying to watch their team
Ridiculous nonsense
Contd.
….or at least to be aware that I very much appreciate your support.
Finally.This is a time of great challenge for Celtic.Your voice and points of view are needed.
I say that ,knowing that your opinions are often at variance with mine.
Cheers.
deliasmith on 28 June, 2012 at 23:56 said:
Given that said club would start in a lower league and not be subject to the gate sharing proposal, in at least the first year, then yes they would.
They will also have a greatly reduced home attendance, if you care to look back, those who were supporters of the dead club did not stay loyal when they were unsuccessful. They walked away. That is assuming they buy into Greens team.
Where do you think the club Green is trying to form should start?
Are you now a regular attender at CP?
Naah mate, never go there. You got me. Do you ever address an argument?
When did anyone on this blog EVER make a reference to your religion?
Fair enough it WAS a year or two ago: something about “we’ll pray for you anyway”, and a winky, smiley thing, so that was OK really – yes?
Come to think of it, when did you ever respond to anyone who took the time to address your unusual points?
Never mate, never ever. Though if I did I think I’d go to the trouble of quoting them in italics and writing my answer underneath. But I can’t be arsed with all that.
Is there any evidence that football leagues with more equitable sharing of income, regardless of who actually brings in that money, result in improved leagues.
Yes. It’s in your history – if you know your history.
Delia dear, I’ve been posting on and off nearly 5 years now. Will you please come up with proof of gate sharing? As for black ops –do you know what that is? I mean,since you read the Victor and all that. The people who wrote stories for the Victor or Hotspur,Wizard or Adventure would not have had a clue about it. It’s all about placing stories, or fabricating stories, or just generally spreading disinformation to unsettle a chosen target.I know it happened in the 2ndWW but it was perfected after that,mainly by the CIA and people of that ilk.
See, what you do is take a proposal, let’s say, for instance, that a man who earns more money than his neighbour gives him some of his hard-earned. Very altruistic–but what happens if the neighbour doesn’t want to and tells him to GTF? You point out that it’s for his own good and he still tells you to GTF?
You may be posting on here since inception, but you’re a chancer.
Can you retrieve some of your older posts please?
I’d love to read them. Remember–Black Propaganda is the new Whyte Lie.
setting free the bears on 29 June, 2012 at 00:01 said:
He doesn’t have little supporting evidence, he has none.
Glib rhetoric, poorly constructed arguements and a smug countenance.
Still hasn’t addressed the points made earlier, evidence, references!
“Raymac on 28 June, 2012 at 23:20 said:
Delia,Quonno, Bontyboy—Media House darlings. Classic black ops. This pulls in Ernie and NegAnon who assert without proof, or Neganon does, that Celtic want them in a 2ndSPL or first division.”
Jeez bud, engage with the argument. Some of these guys have been posting here for years, and just because you don’t agree with them now – and maybe never have – doesn’t mean they want something different from you.
quonno’s consistent argument has been that we will financially suffer if there are no huns in the same league as us. As it happens, I agree – but “whatever part of my club is dependent on Rangers, I am happy to lose”. So we adjust.
The club, as a business, takes the financial losses, and the financial gains, as they arise. They adjust their assumptions, plan for different success/failure options, make predictions about season ticket uptakes, Euro qualifications and income , requirements for player sales to supplement lost revenue / potential to attract players due to increased CL presence…etc
The club, as a support, decides whether we can cope with life without the phenomenon of the huns games.
quonno makes a very very valid point, which a lot of people have (I think) chosen to ignore – skelping the huns is a great moment in every Tim’s life. Skelping them regularly under MON and GS was a joyful period. The emotional investment in any huns game will not be replicated by a final day showdown against Hearts, should such an unlikely eventuality arise.
Yes, we should celebrate the big picture – after 124 years we have won the “Old Firm” derby – they are dead. THE GAME IS OVER. THE REBELS HAVE WON. THE HUNS ARE DEAD.
I am going to repeat that for emphatic, and for me, comic, effect.
THE GAME IS OVER. THE REBELS HAVE WON. THE HUNS ARE DEAD.
THE GAME IS OVER. THE REBELS HAVE WON. THE HUNS ARE DEAD.
THE GAME IS OVER. THE REBELS HAVE WON. THE HUNS ARE DEAD.
[for the BBC Micro / Acorn Electron users…
10 THE GAME IS OVER. THE REBELS HAVE WON. THE HUNS ARE DEAD
20 GOTO 10]
I will miss the huns games. But I won’t miss the huns.
deliasmith on 29 June, 2012 at 00:04 said:
Do you find someone offering up a prayer for you offensive.
Personally I’d have thanked the poster, again, reference, evidence!
Goodnight CQN.
….PFayr on 29 June, 2012 at 00:01 said:
Dirtymac
With gate sharing mediocre players at mediocre teams getting wages their talents don’t deserve … All courtesy of CFC fans paying to watch their team
Ridiculous nonsense
+++++
Yep. Many people seem to think that gate-sharing would ‘help’ smaller clubs; it doesn’t. Give a smaller club the additional £600k they’d get from gate sharing and it would immediately be spent trying to outdo their nearest rivals in order to grab a higher league placing.
This would materialise in the form of signing two or three additional players for a £100k, thus reducing the need to produce two or three players from their youth system.
Next season? Same.
And the next.
There is a vast wealth of historical data to back this behaviour up.
Several years down the line, Scotland are ‘pushing’ for a pot 5 spot in Euro qualifying and our clubs country coefficient sometimes gets above 20th.
Not the future I want.
http://www.hamiltonadvertiser.co.uk/hamilton-lanarkshire-sport/hamiltonaccies/2012/06/28/accies-chairman-doesn-t-want-rangers-to-join-the-first-division-51525-31274978/
macjay1 –
Thanks for your comments. I simply could not believe the level of vitriol being thrown at you and had to speak out. I did indeed see Awe_Naw’s follow-up comment. It was very kind of him to actually prove my point so quickly and so typically. Take care mate and again, thanks for your support.
PS. Before anyone starts, macjay said he hoped I would be able to respond to his comment, which I have done out of courtesy. It doesn’t mean I have gone back on my word. I shall continue to lurk, but that’s it for me.
Hail Hail
My dad, God rest him, had many pearls of wisdom that he bequeathed to me. I’m of an age now where I impart these to my children who roll their eyes half way through my delivery and even finish some of them off for me as they may have heard me mention them previously.
A couple of my favourites are ‘A bird may love a fish, but where would they set up home together?’ and ‘Marry for money and the love will come later’. Neither of these has anything to do with the point I want to make, but I thought I’d share them anyway to kind set the tone :)
He also said ‘ Whatever you have to say, make sure you listen to what everyone else has to say first, and speak last’.
I think this is relevant in our current situation, because I think the currently proposed reforms are, in part, based on something we said too soon.
Sharing gate money, for example, could be seen as a perfect response to us boycotting away grounds, could it not? If this proposal was to be accepted it would completely negate boycotting, would it not? Because they would get the cash that we want to go solely into the development of our club anyway.
I realise that this seems like a simplistic argument, it is, but it’s why I agree with the board of my club saying nothing for now.
I want those that are colluding and conspiring to draft new rules in accordance with their own twisted agenda to finalise and present them, and then I want those that speak on behalf of Celtic to speak last.
The bird and fish dilemma we can return to later…
Hail Hail,
KevinBhoy.
10 PRINT “THE GAME IS OVER. THE REBELS HAVE WON. THE HUNS ARE DEAD”
20 GOTO 10
tut-tut
Tom McLaughlin on 29 June, 2012 at 00:12 said:
Tom if you don’t mind matey what happened anyway ?
delia- I assume this was addressed to me?
“Are you now a regular attender at CP?
Naah mate, never go there. You got me. Do you ever address an argument?”
See, there was an address to the argument in the first part of my post but, as usual, you have skipped over the inconvenient question.
The second question, which you treat with disdain, did have a context which you ignore in order to go all passive/aggressive. As it happens, I would not consider you any less of a Celt if you were a regular attender or not. I was trying to ascertain how in touch you were with events in this part of Scotland since you indicated that you have spent a long time away.
However, I’d much prefer to get an answer to my first query than the unimportant second one.
night y’all
Will post the other soup recipes the morrow