We are three days away from Rangers creditors’ vote on the proposed CVA and my best sources remain strongly of the view that HMRC will vote against. As a result, on Thursday, the process to liquidate Rangers will commence and Charles Green’s company, Sevco 5088, will attempt to purchase the assets of the business.
One of the first acts of Sevco 5088 will be to apply for membership to the Scottish Premier League. They will offer the league an opportunity to retain considerable revenue streams which would be lost to the league following the liquidation of the former football club, Rangers.
Attitudes hardened towards a Newco proposition since Mr Green came onto the scene, specifically since Rangers raised an action against the Scottish FA at the Court of Session, but sentiment in football is fickle. We should ignore all public comments on the subject of Newco and concentrate our minds on the SPL vote, which will take place next week.
Two months ago the Gang of 10 clubs thought they were in an ‘Arab Spring’ moment when they met to discuss how they would use Rangers demise as an opportunity to re-engineer the league. Charles Green is aware of their feelings on this matter and is likely to use this knowledge to inform his offer to the league.
Expect Green to offer to support a change in voting rights if the SPL allow Servco a franchise in the SPL. This offer would allow the Gang of 10 to not only retain much of their existing income streams, they would actually be able to bring in additional income. Servco FC would benefit from being the first company to be able to buy a place in the top division of Scottish football. The only loser from this scenario would be Celtic.
The existing voting rights protect Celtic from several hazards. The most important two are the rights of home teams to retain match ticket revenue and a limit to the number of home games shown live on TV for any club.
You will hear lots of comment from the Gang of 10 that they are not interested in splitting home gate money but none of them have agreed to exclude this matter from the change in voting rights. More Celtic home games on TV would be welcomed by armchair fans that live abroad but would see season ticket holders suffer as kick off times are moved to accommodate TV scheduling. Neither of these matters will be addressed at this month’s SPL meeting but, if the voting rights change, you can expect to read about them soon.
If the application from Sevco is rejected, we enter a new world, where SPL voting rights will inevitably change and Scottish clubs will have to learn to cooperate with each other on a constructive basis. As Celtic fans, we will embrace that challenge, but you can be sure that a slice of your season ticket money is being offered right now by people who have nothing whatsoever to do with Celtic.
895 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- »
Once we start to go down the route of shared gates, were on the road to everything being pooled and distributed evenly like US ‘sporting’ systems. Which is fine when you have far fewer teams than there are cities that would support their infrastructure and a franchise can easily be sold.
If that happened here Kilmarnock aren’t suddenly going to find themselves with a crowd to support a 30k seat stadium but we’d soon find ourselves unable to finance and 60k seat stadium, and we’d have to downsize.
It’s not a road we should be going down at all.
James Forrest I think you would find the money they get would just be paying off debt these other clubs spent trying to compete against D Murrays Bank fuelled Rangers spend. Serious questions there? And also they would not be paying any players more.
I have an alternative suggestion to counteract the other clubs they can get all revenue from their away support at Celtic Park and we take the money from our support at theirs see how they would react to that 2 options they still bring 5 buses and get hehaw we take thousands and get thousands or they come and support their team at Celtic Park and get a few bob can’t see them going for that
Difficult one
Lads how does that work regarding rapid Vienna voting against a cva.
Will this mean liquidation or is it only ticketus or hmrc that will have the power to block cva
James Forrest is Neil Lennon! We are ALL Neil Lennon! on 11 June, 2012 at 23:07 said:
I am surprised by your heartfelt plea for a free market in football.
I agree BTW.
Here in major league sports, clubs in bigger markets subsidise those in smaller markets.
EG in the MLB, all teams pay a percentage of their reveues, a surprisingly high 31%, into a common fund which is then shared with all the teams. Revenues from TV contracts are distributed disproportionately to clubs with the least reveues.
You will regret your stand on season ticket purchase.
Gary
Good memory. Robert Gadocha played for Legia Warsaw, Wlodzimierz Lubamski for Gornik Zabrze when they knocked RFC out. WHere their contracts Okay at that time?
Polish platers could go West when older than 30. The only destinations were probably France and Belgium. Deyna moved to Man City at his 31. He could not say a word in English.
James
Then there is also the legal challenge 40-50K paying money to watch Celtic why are the other team entitled to any of that? Defo for the courts and I believe Celtic would argue that before it even went to courts
garygillespieshamstring on 11 June, 2012 at 23:26 said:
Estorilbhoy : season 65 66. First game I remember being at was against hearts or Dundee. stevie chalmers scored. Also remember hearing about the 2-3 defeat at swine castle after Tbilisi trip. Saw tic beat Stranraer in the cup in jan 66 and got to the Liverpool semi final.
Ggh
——
Cheers mate. Must have felt great to you when they invented electricity? :))))
EB
I pay £500 for my season ticket, I pay that to watch Celtic.
Competition??
Nonsense I’d still pay the money regardless of who we were playing. If anyone thinks that we should be subsidising Hearts, Kilmarnock, Motherwell or any of the rest of them then you’re crackers.
It’s madness I tell ye, madness!!
Zbyszek
Wouldn’t dare comment on contracts. Remember Deyna at man city. When did they lift the ban on under 30s?
Dziekenowski was a spectacular player for Celtic but did not play consistently well.
Liked to enjoy his drinking and partying too much sadly.
hen1rik on 11 June, 2012 at 23:28 said:
Lads how does that work regarding rapid Vienna voting against a cva.
Will this mean liquidation or is it only ticketus or hmrc that will have the power to block cva
—–
HMRC hold the ACE liquidatin card. Other creditors are bit players from a liquidation perspective.
Oh and another thing……
I go to all Celtic’s away games. Now often when I’m approaching a turnstile at another ground in Scotland the price on my ticket is several quid more than the pay in price above the turnstile.
I’m already putting sufficient amounts into the pots of these other clubs. I’ll be damned if I’m doing it twice.
It’s madness I tell ye, madness.
Regarding this debate on the redistribution of oor Club’s money, I can’t help asking myself why such a proposal in Scottish football should have precedence over the way it’s done in European football??
Hoping no ones compares any of the proposals (are they in writing anywhere?) to the German model which apart from being very different has the added bonus of not being goverened by Scottish football.
That’s my tuppence worth of contribution.
James et aii I found this on NFL revenue sharing.
The NFL’s revenue-sharing model is universally lauded as the reason pro football continues to thrive in tiny markets like Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The bulk of the league’s revenue – approximately $4 billion in 2011 – comes from broadcast deals with NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That income is shared equally among all teams. Income from licensing deals – everything from jerseys to posters to team-logo beer coolers – is also shared evenly.
Ticket revenue is split using a slightly different formula: the home team keeps 60 percent of “the gate” for each game, while the visiting team gets 40 percent.
Other sources of revenue – things like the sale of luxury boxes, stadium concessions and the like – are not shared, which does give teams in bigger markets or with state-of-the-art arenas a significant edge in profitability. The new CBA attempts to remedy that in two ways. First, the league will set aside a percentage of revenue in a stadium fund, which will be used to match teams’ investments in their facilities. Second, there will be an additional “luxury tax” levied on high-revenue teams, with the receipts set to be distributed to the lower-revenue clubs.
ASonOfDan on 11 June, 2012 at 15:49 said:
So funny and so wrong…
A pensioner needed help from firefighters to remove a sex aid that had become stuck on a delicate area of his body.
——————————————————————————————
He was heard to scream, just before the angle grinder was applied: ‘I only wanted you to change the batteries!’
Garry
I meant the contracts at the RFC.
That ban was less respected in late 80-ties. Before tat time , every transfer must have been accepted by some commetees, devils bodies.
Dariusz Dziekanowski is the commentator In the Polishh TV for this tournament. Hard to find more intelligent person among the footballers. Not wise career.
Garry
I meant the contracts at the RFC.
That ban was less respected in late 80-ties. Before tat time , every transfer must have been accepted by some commetees, devils bodies.
Dariusz Dziekanowski is the commentator In the Polishh TV for this tournament. Hard to find more intelligent person among the footballers. Not most wise footballing career.
estorilbhoy on 11 June, 2012 at 23:39 said:
Cheers matey.
Sorry for the double post. That means it’s time for me. Good night.
Will watch the hordes on the streets in a feww hours.
Zbyszek : all contracts at that time meant players were paid very poorly and held on contracts that made it very hard for them to change club. No double contracts then, I think.
Agree about Dariusz.
Neil Patey has been saying for months it will be liquidation and now he’s been talking to the Daily Mail saying its 50% that a cva could be agreed.
Why has he changed his mind on this ?
Is this the biggest scandal ever and hmrc will not punish Huns.
Why were they quick enough to threaten hearts but not the huns.
Paul67 et al
I shouldn’t really be surprised that some on here have an ourselves alone approach to Celtic and to Scottish football but what does surprise me is their complete lack of understanding of exactly what that approach represents. For the uninitiated, such a position places us fairly and squarely where the present day Celtic Board see us, unashamed defenders of the Old Firm, writ large. The SPL is, or was, the logical development of the changes implemented back in the 1970s. Greed is good. Forget about Charlie Green, Rangers are finished in all but name. Those concerned about the possibility, of part of their season ticket money going to a less worthy cause than that of being the green half of the Old Firm should dwell for a moment on the fact that the taxpayers of Great Britain have, or will have, subsidised Rangers Football Club, and all it represents, to the tune of some £250 million, before the present day shenanigans have reached their sorry end. That is where we should focus our discontent, and be prepared to help Scottish football, creatively and imaginatively, not by advocating a return to the biscuit tin philosophy, that some on here are keen to espouse.
Celtic Mac,
In any other country in the world it would have some basis for argument, but not here. We need to be getting out of Scottish football. Any proposals they make will NOT be for the better of the game in this country, simple as that.
Delia
Out of interest do you attend away games?
Many hours ago I asked if someone could put forward a cogent argument against paying visiting sides a sizeable share of gate money. The gem of forensic argument above is the latest response – about average for the evening.
Seriously fellow Celtic fans, somebody on this blog must be willing to try to explain why it’s OK to pay visiting teams thirty per cent of the gate, or more, for a cup tie but unthinkable to pay twenty per cent to them when it’s a league game.
Oh, and the answer is no.
Fortunes Favours
They are not in any position to make any proposals. Not one!
deliasmith,
Why don’y you give up then, if no one is capable of meeting your level of “cogent” debate?
I seem to recall Bouncyboy had the same problem but he too couldn’t help coming back for more.
For the record;
I don’t have any problem with a redistribution of TV revenue. If Celtic agree to that, it removes the whole argument for granting any kind of deal to Rangers at a stroke. In fact, a more equitable distribution of TV money might seem clubs getting paid more in a reduced TV deal than they do now.
TV revenue is one thing. Taking gate money, ticket money, which the fans pay for their own team, is another entirely.
Celtic Mac,
Was referrring to the the SPL teams.
At the moment I’m not sure it’s clear what the terms are likely to be, but for me there is no question that they quite simply want more of the cash and will give little consideration about how to rescue the Scottish game which has been ruined in the last 20 years.
deliasmith on 12 June, 2012 at 00:09 said:
Delia
Out of interest do you attend away games?
Many hours ago I asked if someone could put forward a cogent argument against paying visiting sides a sizeable share of gate money. The gem of forensic argument above is the latest response – about average for the evening.
Seriously fellow Celtic fans, somebody on this blog must be willing to try to explain why it’s OK to pay visiting teams thirty per cent of the gate, or more, for a cup tie but unthinkable to pay twenty per cent to them when it’s a league game.
Oh, and the answer is no.
—–
Where does 30% come from I understood cup games were 50%?
Delia
It is who we would be paying a share to, which causes me most problems.
I have posted many times about a more equitable spread of money in the game, however have a major problem that Celtic fans would not only be punished through losing out on success through the Murray years Rfc being funded by the banks, other teams spending big (but not big enough) to try and keep up, then after the whole thing collapses Celtic fans left to pay for their mistakes.
I would be willing to consider this after each club pays off all debt they owe, I do believe we need to do something radical with our game, hand outs rewarding would mistakes would be crazy. Giving a straight % to clubs who have proven many times they’re incapable of running themselves properly would still kill our game.
I would also like to point out that 20% of eff all is eff all.
hh
bjmac
We all know what should happen to their CVA proposal but there are more of these accepted than rejected.
However of the other clubs that have gone down the administration route how many have just stop paying all their taxes? This hopefully is the big difference between rangers(IA) and other clubs that have successfully gained a CVA.
The split of gate income is idle speculation and will not happen as this would mean the top six rich clubs would be supplementing the other six.
The CVA and the EBTs are the main issues.
Delia
Sadly I’m not able to discuss the in any great depth at present. I will say this however your condescending manner is rather insulting.
I would request that you go back and read my two posts earlier on this page they may go some way to explaining how I feel and why.
James Forrest
For the record I am not in favour of distributing our supporters hard earned season ticket, or any ticket, money to visiting clubs, that particular boat has sailed. But let us take your own idea, but refer not just to television, but to broadcasting in the wider sense, all forms. Assume, for the moment, no Sky deal, a nominal loss of some £20 million pa to Scottish football, the SPL will not get that from us. What they could get, as you suggest, is a share of our broadcasting rights, over a whole season, of, for the sake of argument, 10% of the total. I do not know how much we could generate in the short or long term, but Auldheid at least, has put some numbers together, so I think we can be sure that there would be some mutual benefit to all parties, ourselves not alone, but included. I think you would agree that we need to look beyond the present construct, and we certainly do not need to be taking seriously the musings of somebody like Charlie Green! Not now, not ever!
Taking gate money, ticket money, which the fans pay for their own team, is another entirely.
You pay gate money to watch a game – a game, that’s two teams.
Cup ties – the SFA takes a slice, the home team takes a minimum fee/slice to cover security, policing and so on. Then 50-50. Comes out at about 30 per cent to visitors
Fortunes Favour Mibbes on 12 June, 2012 at 00:14 said:
deliasmith,
Why don’y you give up then, if no one is capable of meeting your level of “cogent” debate?
This evening I’ve had “Get back to Govan”, “Are you Walter Smith?”, “Are you in business?” and “Do you go to away matches?” These are all signs of folk with no idea about making a case, too idle or stupid to make a simple argument. I’m not going away to oblige that kind of empty-headedness.
Come on, tell me why it’s OK for Jock Stein’s Celtic to pay a slice to league visitors, why it’s OK to pay Rangers £400 thousand after a cup-tie at CP, why it’s OK for the Jets or the Bears to share gate money with Green Bay, but the prospect of handing 20 percent of the gate to Inverness Caley makes grown men swoon.
‘GG on 11 June, 2012 at 23:42 said:
James et aii I found this on NFL revenue sharing.
—————
I believe that every NFL franchise makes money
whether FANS show up at the games or not.
To be clear the teams make money even if the stands are empty.
Also the cities they play in build the stadiums for the teams, mostly.
These are the broad strokes, some teams
may have built their own stadiums; Green Bay I think.
I find it difficult to compare the NFL with the SPL,
all they have in common is football and the placement of the ‘L’.
Tobago
As estorilbhoy says I think it’s 50% for cup games. That was supposed to be part of the magic of the cup/s for the wee diddy teams…getting a big payday that would tide them over for a season or three. No one, I think, grudges them that.
But to use the green pound like we were the IMF to bail out Scottish football is wrong and NOT sustainable.
Especially not for SPL teams. They have to live within their means like any other business. A fair share of the TV monies is one way to go certainly. IMO.
In return the other clubs have to put an end to raising prices for our visits as they get a big enough of a payday without this dubious practice.
Can someone please remind me how many fans visited Paradise last season, minus orcs? Very small/negligible figure if I remember correctly.
Deliasmith
But I’m not going ask if you’re Bouncyboy. I know you are.
The condescension and insults combined with a failure to offer any actual constructive debate with those who do you the courtesy of a reply.
It’s a familiar style which gives me the heebee geebies. Very creepy.
Paul67 et al
For the record the BBC recently agreed a new contract for TV highlights of the EPL 2013-2016 for over £180 million. For the highlights! And, to the best of my knowledge, that does not cover the Championship, or live radio coverage. Let us apply, okay let us call it the Barnett formula, to that kind of spending, as a starting position at least. That is some £6 million a year that should be coming Scotland’s way. Let us take that as our starting point and take it from there.
Deliasmith
But I’m not going ask if you’re Bouncyboy. I know you are.
The condescension and insults combined with a failure to offer any actual constructive debate with those who do you the courtesy of a reply.
It’s a familiar style which gives me the heebee geebies. Very creepy.
Not only am I not Bouncy bhoy, I’ve never even heard of Bouncy bhoy. My point, which you have now made touchingly quickly and simply, is that no-one here tonight seems able to deal with a straightforward question, but instead resorts to truculent half-threats and ad hominem remarks.
So, mibbes, answer this, if you can, in a civil and straightforward manner:
WHY is it OK for Jock Stein’s Celtic to pay a slice to league visitors, why is it OK to pay Rangers £400 thousand after a cup-tie at CP, why is it OK for the Jets or the Bears to share gate money with Green Bay, but so shocking to pay 20 percent of the gate to Inverness Caley?
Or an easier one: list the four teams after Rangers you most dislike: Hearts, St Mirren, Kilmarnock, Motherwell, say. Now, never mind Hibs, Dundee United, Dunfermline … just those four baddies: how is it good for us if they are impoverished and go bust? Or are so weak they might as well be bust?