The stage is set. Dundee United, the club who were last to beat Celtic, stand in the way of their treble ambitions, as the clubs meet on three consecutive occasions next month. The first game, a Scottish Cup quarter final at Tannadice, is the most crucial.
United lost their best two players last week but they remain they will know that beating Celtic at home will make them favourites for the Scottish Cup. They will be far less confident at the following week’s League Cup final, Dundee United expectations are always low at Hampden, but pressure will be on the club to win their home game.
A note on the suitability or otherwise of a director of a public company. In the UK, only the courts can ban you from being a company director, HMRC cannot ban you, any more than they can ban you from driving. In the UK, public companies are held to a higher standard than private companies. If anyone presents to you claiming, “HMRC have never banned me from driving/being a company director”, you know your being misled. The same is true for most jurisdictions.
The AIM market requires companies to have nominated adviser (nomad), which carries out regulator duties on behalf of the market, and ultimately shareholders. The fact that UK, or other, courts have not prohibited you from being a company director implies nothing about your suitability as a director of a public company. When it comes to the AIM market, this suitability is judged by your effective regulator, your nomad. A recent history of financial criminal activity, for example, will give your nomad plenty to consider, as would a recent history of being a director in a liquidated public company. Far more would decline such a candidate than approve.
808 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
new article posted.
Monaghan – these can’t be for real? Other clubs need to learn to live within their means and mot rely on Rangers????? These mudt be from a couple of Jakeys up a close that have been sniffing aerosols for last 4 years.
Traditionalist 88
I do not think we are in a million miles away here.
The sums quoted are almost unimagineable and , particularly for Sky, must represent a significant portion of their programme making expenditure. I would have thought that the audience within the British and Irish Isles cannot get significantly bigger so I cannot see that this can be that viable. And they will be losing at least 1 viewer this April irrespective of what they give us. Me.
The aim clearly is to make the EPL a franchise that is like the NFL and that is the overwhelming market leader in its sport.A £1m quid a week? There will be more thsn just footballers and agents who wilk be looking forward to it.
Jimbo67
The astronomical sums being paid by Sky and BT to televise the English Priemiership is serving only to detatch that league from the rest of English soccer.
The money, if not going to foreign agents, is going into the pockets of Daimler salesmen, it’s not filtering its way down.
The EPL will surely jetison the Burnleys and the Stokes and eventually join a European super league.
I’m among those who can’t see the EPL bubble bursting. It is popular all over the world. I would like to think pressure could be placed on OUR BBC to invest proportionally in our Scottish game. That, while nothing like the sums available in England, should be substantially more than here at present.
SKY/BT are commercial firms, which are in it for the money. The BBC is supposed to be for the benefit of all people of the UK. It is ludicrous that it spends more on MOTD than the entire budget of BBC Scotland.
Last?
Asked this question yesterday but did not see an answer. Does the gov’t fund the SFA, aside from membership fees?
HH
gsu
So, with a guaranteed minimum of £100,000,000 available to Mike Ashley every season till 2019, do the deluded still fear him selling Newcastle, and concentrating his efforts down Snake Mountain way? I know we keep forgetting about the 500,000,000 infected by “Rangersitis”.
My own thoughts are that I hope the Lying King and 3 stooges do succeed in the (eventual) upcoming EGM. I can only see them inheriting the loss-making football°-playing side of the business, whilst MA cleans up via his “onerous contracts” Where is King going to find the money, legally anyway, to keep the Peepel happy? Cant see it myself. So, if someone can explain to me, as a Celtic man, why Ashley is better than King, please tell me where I’m going wrong.
HH
°term used loosely.