Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 7, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 7, 2012 Never liked Rangers but think isn't a shame a great footballing institution has come to this. Fear for Scottish football as a whole. I know a lot of Celtic fans disagree but I personally think that's a blinkered view. I'll be the first to admit if I'm wrong but I really don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalaxyV.2 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 It could, open the Scottish League up though. Celtic are obviously going to be the big one, but it may lead to a lot of young Scottish players being picked up by the 'lesser sides', and allow clubs to actually build. Maybe that's an optimistic view. Â Can't blame Celtic for loving it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Scottish football might not be the same without Rangers but it would easily survive. We'd just be a bit of a diddy league. Well, more of a diddy league than we are already. There's no doubt that the Old Firm together are a marketable tool and without them, there really isn't all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Scottish football might not be the same without Rangers but it would easily survive. We'd just be a bit of a diddy league. Well, more of a diddy league than we are already. There's no doubt that the Old Firm together are a marketable tool and without them, there really isn't all that much. Â Not really, it'll give more money to the other 11 clubs in the SPL now. The excess money Rangers get will be split to the other clubs equally hopefully. FTOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcmahonman Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Scottish football might not be the same without Rangers but it would easily survive. We'd just be a bit of a diddy league. Well, more of a diddy league than we are already. There's no doubt that the Old Firm together are a marketable tool and without them, there really isn't all that much. Â Not really, it'll give more money to the other 11 clubs in the SPL now. The excess money Rangers get will be split to the other clubs equally hopefully. FTOF. Â Will it fuck. The money that comes through the SPL will be smaller. Love them or hate them Rangers help bring money to the SPL. The TV rights will be cheaper without the viewing audience of the two Glasgow clubs for a starter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cum Doctor Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Scottish football might not be the same without Rangers but it would easily survive. We'd just be a bit of a diddy league. Well, more of a diddy league than we are already. There's no doubt that the Old Firm together are a marketable tool and without them, there really isn't all that much. Â Not really, it'll give more money to the other 11 clubs in the SPL now. The excess money Rangers get will be split to the other clubs equally hopefully. FTOF. Â mcmahonman has covered this pretty well. Â There won't be as much money in the SPL if there's no Rangers. Infact, it'll be significantly cut from the cut price ESPN/Sky deal that we currently have up here, which can be cancelled if Rangers aren't in the SPL. The market for the SPL will be reduced, hence there will be less money put in from the TV companies, and that doesn't even cover potential sponsers. Â I actually think I'd rather have a complete diddy league than one dominated by two teams. Â This is all assuming no Rangers in the future. Even if Rangers do go under, we'll see them again in some shape or form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FUM Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The Cypriot league didn't "need a strong Rangers" to get a team to the quarter finals of the Champions League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 It seems like all the talk now is about liquidation being inevitable. If I were a creditor, I'd be asking serious questions right now about why there have not yet been any redundancies among the players. At other clubs in administration, weren't redundancies announced within days? It's taken them a long time to even get the negotiations moving. If they need to save Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2012 At Motherwell and Portsmouth and Leeds and wherever else, wasn't that one of the first things the administrators did? Motherwell maybe. English clubs have rarely (if at all) made players redundant. Don't think it's as easy with the football creditors rule in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 At Motherwell and Portsmouth and Leeds and wherever else, wasn't that one of the first things the administrators did? Motherwell maybe. English clubs have rarely (if at all) made players redundant. Don't think it's as easy with the football creditors rule in place. Â Ah, OK. I think you guys have different rules in place than we do. I'm almost certain the Motherwell redundancies (and the Livingston ones too) happened within a few days of the administrators coming in. Â The administrators last night issued a statement saying there's a real possibility of Rangers not even fulfilling their fixtures this season. That's insane. Even if they made the entire senior squad redundant, they still have a fair wee team of under 17s who I'm sure would love the chance to play in an Old Firm title decider as their first shot at the big time. I imagine we'd probably lose, too. I'm fairly certain that if you can't fulfil your fixtures, you get automatic relegation to the Third Division. Isn't that what happened to Livi? If so, could Glasgow Rangers NewCo realistically apply for membership of the SPL? Wouldn't the First Division side that would otherwise be promoted be entitled to sue? I certainly hope they'd try. I can think of a lawyer who'd have been great to give advice on it. Shame he's dead now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Scottish football might not be the same without Rangers but it would easily survive. We'd just be a bit of a diddy league. Well, more of a diddy league than we are already. There's no doubt that the Old Firm together are a marketable tool and without them, there really isn't all that much. Â Not really, it'll give more money to the other 11 clubs in the SPL now. The excess money Rangers get will be split to the other clubs equally hopefully. FTOF. Â mcmahonman has covered this pretty well. Â There won't be as much money in the SPL if there's no Rangers. Infact, it'll be significantly cut from the cut price ESPN/Sky deal that we currently have up here, which can be cancelled if Rangers aren't in the SPL. The market for the SPL will be reduced, hence there will be less money put in from the TV companies, and that doesn't even cover potential sponsers. Â I actually think I'd rather have a complete diddy league than one dominated by two teams. Â This is all assuming no Rangers in the future. Even if Rangers do go under, we'll see them again in some shape or form. Â Â He's not covered it at all. Doncaster says it will cost us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cogitoergozoomo Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Scottish football might not be the same without Rangers but it would easily survive. We'd just be a bit of a diddy league. Well, more of a diddy league than we are already. There's no doubt that the Old Firm together are a marketable tool and without them, there really isn't all that much. Â Not really, it'll give more money to the other 11 clubs in the SPL now. The excess money Rangers get will be split to the other clubs equally hopefully. FTOF. Â mcmahonman has covered this pretty well. Â There won't be as much money in the SPL if there's no Rangers. Infact, it'll be significantly cut from the cut price ESPN/Sky deal that we currently have up here, which can be cancelled if Rangers aren't in the SPL. The market for the SPL will be reduced, hence there will be less money put in from the TV companies, and that doesn't even cover potential sponsers. Â I actually think I'd rather have a complete diddy league than one dominated by two teams. Â This is all assuming no Rangers in the future. Even if Rangers do go under, we'll see them again in some shape or form. Â Â He's not covered it at all. Doncaster says it will cost us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 Worth a read. Basically covers stuff I've said here before, but with evidence'n'shit. Â Why Scotland Doesn't Need Rangers. Â Yes, I'm well aware that it could apply to Celtic too, but there's no reason why other teams getting more competitive and us going on a bad run couldn't change the whole scene. No Rangers and Tony Mowbray back at Celtic could change the entire league. Plus Rangers are a despicable club that cheated their way to success. Celtic may have some less than savoury aspects to their identity, but we're not cheats, liars and thieves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted March 8, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2012 The administrators are saying today that they can save far more money if the players agree a cut than if they made redundancies. Assuming that they'd have to pay out redundancy money, that maybe makes sense. But as pointed out, the costs keep on coming so surely a decision has to be taken quickly? Â Read a report that the players want assurances that if they take these big cuts, the ordinary staff will keep jobs which, if true, is a very nice gesture. They need to get a shift on though otherwise everyone will be out of a job. Â Love this second tweet: Â #1 - SFA says Rangers owner Craig Whyte "not considered to be fit and proper person to hold position within Association Football" Â #2 - Also new from the SFA: "Pope confirmed Catholic" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo Posted March 8, 2012 Share Posted March 8, 2012 The administrators are saying today that they can save far more money if the players agree a cut than if they made redundancies. Assuming that they'd have to pay out redundancy money, that maybe makes sense. But as pointed out, the costs keep on coming so surely a decision has to be taken quickly? Read a report that the players want assurances that if they take these big cuts, the ordinary staff will keep jobs which, if true, is a very nice gesture. They need to get a shift on though otherwise everyone will be out of a job.  Love this second tweet:  #1 - SFA says Rangers owner Craig Whyte "not considered to be fit and proper person to hold position within Association Football"  #2 - Also new from the SFA: "Pope confirmed Catholic"  The other part is though Rick, they are breaking the players contracts by making wage cuts, unless they re-sign long term deals on these wages which is unlikely, thus in the summer they would be able to walk for free, which means the club is losing assets of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.