Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/fulham/news/report-fulham-target-mark-warburton_260280.html#$$nyqbp3&&TXleTJjrEeWYDxLiLC u6pw$$

I hope they keep stirring it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

I'm suggesting that we already know there are problems, that we absolutely cannot go on as before and we would be far better off spending our time shaping the to-be, rather than undertaking yet more detailed analysis of the as-is.

---

I agree with that. As is known I have absolutely no time for the Phil McGobbledygooks of this world and the other Sellik minded bigots who are trying to sell me their agenda but as a whole I would suggest Scottish football needs rigourous financial controls put in place far more than it needs more thashing of the Rangers panto.

I'd suggest the following could be a start.
1) Each club should aim to break even every year. Clubs which continually post losses year on year without address to point 2 shall be called before the SFA/SPFL where points deductions may apply the next season.

2) Existing bank debts and loansheld by clubs should be actively paid down and progress should be seen year on year in this area. Failure to address points 1 and 2 shall result in automatic relegation.

3) Clubs which do not submit audited accounts and are also in breach or points 1 and 2 shall be automatically relegated to the bottom tier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

There's also my west stand season ticket. Not forgetting the east stand stone that I recently bought. Or my Hibs TV subscription. My Hibs Lotto subscription might even come up one of these times, although I'm not expecting any return from my HSL payments.

I've never challenged the fact you're genuine hence my continuing incredulity at your stance. You choose to accept one part of LNS judgement, the £250k ( unpaid ) fine, but not his statement that The Rangers are the same club! You can't really rely on part of his report to support your argument but ignore the major part that doesn't! About 3 pages ( seems like a week ago ) back I said I agreed your points 1 & 2, that was a typo, I meant 2 & 3, ie Sevco must pay the fine now & a proper system of governance must be established. I worked in financial governance for many years & our starting point was almost always a look back at prior failures. That's why the same thing should happen with this sorry saga including a review of the cover-up which was the LNS report. It's not just punishment for The Rangers that I want, I think it's essential that the roles played by people such as Campbell Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster et al be exposed to proper scrutiny & censure/action if appropriate.
PS, The £250k fine was imposed on The Rangers by LNS for failing to declare side letters to what was at that time deemed to be a legal tax avoidance scheme. ( or rather Oldco were deemed to have been in compliance with the rules of such a scheme, which they clearly were not - the loans were never intended to be repaid ). In light of the current status of EBT's would you accept that punishment for The Rangers could & should have been greater? Mind you, as they continue not to pay the £250k, & how do they get away with that?, it probably doesn't matter. As I said earlier true Armageddon occurs when the rule of law breaks down & that's been pretty much the attitude of The Rangers for the last 3 years.

---

Some excellent points Brog...
Cherry picking from the LNS ruling being the stand out, and that that (unpaid) punishment should (for me) be upgraded if the current EBT decision (superceeding LNS) is upheld following the appeal being heard.

But I far more want to see the likes of Sandy Bryson, who limited the scope of the LNS enquiry and those above him who directed that, being publicly questioned as to why they felt it the right thing to do..

In my view, and with the information currently out in the open, I can't see how is tenable to proceed with the same people in charge..

Can i liken it to Marlin fishing, and the whoppers just been hooked, and so far theres been a little bit of wrestling with the fish on the line.. who's twisting and turning to get away

Do you say 'that's enough now, I caught the fish', or do you keep at it til you can lift it into the boat? If you cut the line now, that opportunity to land the whopper is gone forever

the current processes have to be seen through. We're no where near a stage where we can put this all in the past.



.....And that's nothing to do with Rangers now!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibs0666

What are the biggest signs of improvement that you are seeing?

---

The gap between the remaining OF club and the leading non-OF clubs is smaller than it's been for 20+years. Unless/until this gap gets small enough that a club like ours has some small hope, albeit a tiny one, of bridging it over the course of some cup ties or a league season, then we don't really have a professional game worth the candle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

I agree with that. As is known I have absolutely no time for the Phil McGobbledygooks of this world and the other Sellik minded bigots who are trying to sell me their agenda but as a whole I would suggest Scottish football needs rigourous financial controls put in place far more than it needs more thashing of the Rangers panto.

I'd suggest the following could be a start.
1) Each club should aim to break even every year. Clubs which continually post losses year on year without address to point 2 shall be called before the SFA/SPFL where points deductions may apply the next season.

2) Existing bank debts and loansheld by clubs should be actively paid down and progress should be seen year on year in this area. Failure to address points 1 and 2 shall result in automatic relegation.

3) Clubs which do not submit audited accounts and are also in breach or points 1 and 2 shall be automatically relegated to the bottom tier.

---

These are great theoretically, but Id say impractical and difficult to implement.
A club stretches itself under pressure to stay competitive, avoid relegation or whatever, and the sanction youatsuggesting is to cut out further income and potentially force insolvency due to a demotion to Tier4.

Not saying strict sanctions shouldn't be in place, but the clubs all have to sign in for it in the first place!

Not to mention as has been pointed out on many occasions, ( and probably again soon! ) it is acceptable practice for a business to run at a loss for a number of years. We've done it ourselves now for a bit in our efforts to cope with the drop in income

Hibs 0666 is arguing for something that cannot actually be stopped even if we wanted it to. There are multiple court cases ongoing which will bring more revelations (he wrong in asserting that we already know everything) that will fuel this fire. The only way this can be stopped is with a full a and transparent investigation into the corruption of our game.
We can't move on until it's done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kavinho

These are great theoretically, but Id say impractical and difficult to implement.
A club stretches itself under pressure to stay competitive, avoid relegation or whatever, and the sanction youatsuggesting is to cut out further income and potentially force insolvency due to a demotion to Tier4.

Not saying strict sanctions shouldn't be in place, but the clubs all have to sign in for it in the first place!

Not to mention as has been pointed out on many occasions, ( and probably again soon! ) it is acceptable practice for a business to run at a loss for a number of years. We've done it ourselves now for a bit in our efforts to cope with the drop in income

---

Borrowing is not income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

There's also my west stand season ticket. Not forgetting the east stand stone that I recently bought. Or my Hibs TV subscription. My Hibs Lotto subscription might even come up one of these times, although I'm not expecting any return from my HSL payments.

I've never challenged the fact you're genuine hence my continuing incredulity at your stance. You choose to accept one part of LNS judgement, the £250k ( unpaid ) fine, but not his statement that The Rangers are the same club! You can't really rely on part of his report to support your argument but ignore the major part that doesn't! About 3 pages ( seems like a week ago ) back I said I agreed your points 1 & 2, that was a typo, I meant 2 & 3, ie Sevco must pay the fine now & a proper system of governance must be established. I worked in financial governance for many years & our starting point was almost always a look back at prior failures. That's why the same thing should happen with this sorry saga including a review of the cover-up which was the LNS report. It's not just punishment for The Rangers that I want, I think it's essential that the roles played by people such as Campbell Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster et al be exposed to proper scrutiny & censure/action if appropriate.
PS, The £250k fine was imposed on The Rangers by LNS for failing to declare side letters to what was at that time deemed to be a legal tax avoidance scheme. ( or rather Oldco were deemed to have been in compliance with the rules of such a scheme, which they clearly were not - the loans were never intended to be repaid ). In light of the current status of EBT's would you accept that punishment for The Rangers could & should have been greater? Mind you, as they continue not to pay the £250k, & how do they get away with that?, it probably doesn't matter. As I said earlier true Armageddon occurs when the rule of law breaks down & that's been pretty much the attitude of The Rangers for the last 3 years.

---

And LL :aok:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Borrowing is not income.

---

Apparently is if you are borrowing from an EBT?

[QUOTE=Ozyhibby;4515304]Borrowing is not income.



Yes thank you. I'm aware. ..


An enforced drop to the4th tier would result in less income, requiring more borrowing, and potentially on to an insolvency event, unless a club drastically cuts is expenses, thereby seriously restricting its ability to get back up...
all if we are working to the proposed rules I was replying to originally

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brog

There's also my west stand season ticket. Not forgetting the east stand stone that I recently bought. Or my Hibs TV subscription. My Hibs Lotto subscription might even come up one of these times, although I'm not expecting any return from my HSL payments.

I've never challenged the fact you're genuine hence my continuing incredulity at your stance. You choose to accept one part of LNS judgement, the £250k ( unpaid ) fine, but not his statement that The Rangers are the same club! You can't really rely on part of his report to support your argument but ignore the major part that doesn't! About 3 pages ( seems like a week ago ) back I said I agreed your points 1 & 2, that was a typo, I meant 2 & 3, ie Sevco must pay the fine now & a proper system of governance must be established. I worked in financial governance for many years & our starting point was almost always a look back at prior failures. That's why the same thing should happen with this sorry saga including a review of the cover-up which was the LNS report. It's not just punishment for The Rangers that I want, I think it's essential that the roles played by people such as Campbell Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster et al be exposed to proper scrutiny & censure/action if appropriate.
PS, The £250k fine was imposed on The Rangers by LNS for failing to declare side letters to what was at that time deemed to be a legal tax avoidance scheme. ( or rather Oldco were deemed to have been in compliance with the rules of such a scheme, which they clearly were not - the loans were never intended to be repaid ). In light of the current status of EBT's would you accept that punishment for The Rangers could & should have been greater? Mind you, as they continue not to pay the £250k, & how do they get away with that?, it probably doesn't matter. As I said earlier true Armageddon occurs when the rule of law breaks down & that's been pretty much the attitude of The Rangers for the last 3 years.

---

:agree: All of this, and something that is tangible to the average hun has to happen to reinforce that they are indeed a new club permanently whatever workarounds have been created to assuage them.

I also think that if we are serious about the sporting integrity statements we should be seeing steps taken to take away that which has been gained by cheating, its happening elsewhere in sport, so why not here?

Entering void against the record of teams who cheated, gained an illegal advantage, whatever you want to call it, is what I'd like to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kavinho

These are great theoretically, but Id say impractical and difficult to implement.
A club stretches itself under pressure to stay competitive, avoid relegation or whatever, and the sanction youatsuggesting is to cut out further income and potentially force insolvency due to a demotion to Tier4.

Not saying strict sanctions shouldn't be in place, but the clubs all have to sign in for it in the first place!

Not to mention as has been pointed out on many occasions, ( and probably again soon! ) it is acceptable practice for a business to run at a loss for a number of years. We've done it ourselves now for a bit in our efforts to cope with the drop in income

---

Accept what you are saying but I am wanting to force clubs going forward to live within their means. That for me is more important than raking over the now stone cold coals of Rangers meltdown.

Running at a loss is one thing but Hibs are paying down their debt therefore we wouldn't be affected by new possible rules on scrutiny. Our finances are solid.

What I'm proposing is a validation check on the financial affairs of member clubs so that we do not revisit the last 10 years where we have had arguably the biggest club in the land go bust, and two larger clubs go bust in Hearts and Dundee along with clubs such as Livingston and Gretna buying their way to cup finals and promotions before going bust.

I really don't think it's unfair that a member club which runs up year on year losses and debt increases and then fails to submit audited accounts should be viewed as unfit to play in the top flight and summarily relegated. Whether that is to the league below or to the 4th tier should be a matter for the League but surely if we are to learn one thing from the catastrophes at Tynecastle and Ibrox it is this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

Accept what you are saying but I am wanting to force clubs going forward to live within their means. That for me is more important than raking over the now stone cold coals of Rangers meltdown.

Running at a loss is one thing but Hibs are paying down their debt therefore we wouldn't be affected by new possible rules on scrutiny. Our finances are solid.

What I'm proposing is a validation check on the financial affairs of member clubs so that we do not revisit the last 10 years where we have had arguably the biggest club in the land go bust, and two larger clubs go bust in Hearts and Dundee along with clubs such as Livingston and Gretna buying their way to cup finals and promitions before going bust.

I really don't think it's unfair that a member club which runs up year on year losses and debt increases and then fails to submit audited accounts should be viewed as unfit to play in the top flight and summarily relegated. Whether that is to the league below or to the 4th tier should be a matter for the League but surely if we are to learn one thing from the catastrophes at Tynecastle and Ibrox it is this.

---

This would be great but if you follow the SFA/hibs0666 model, you could only take action against clubs that you weren't desperate to keep around for short term commercial reasons. So you could punish Gretna but not the new Rangers.

There's no point overhauling the rules until we have football authorities that recognise the value of applying them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

Accept what you are saying but I am wanting to force clubs going forward to live within their means. That for me is more important than raking over the now stone cold coals of Rangers meltdown.

Running at a loss is one thing but Hibs are paying down their debt therefore we wouldn't be affected by new possible rules on scrutiny. Our finances are solid.

What I'm proposing is a validation check on the financial affairs of member clubs so that we do not revisit the last 10 years where we have had arguably the biggest club in the land go bust, and two larger clubs go bust in Hearts and Dundee along with clubs such as Livingston and Gretna buying their way to cup finals and promitions before going bust.

I really don't think it's unfair that a member club which runs up year on year losses and debt increases and then fails to submit audited accounts should be viewed as unfit to play in the top flight and summarily relegated. Whether that is to the league below or to the 4th tier should be a matter for the League but surely if we are to learn one thing from the catastrophes at Tynecastle and Ibrox it is this.

---

Completely agree on the principal, just remember all clubs have to agree to adopt it. I think it a little impractical on the first draft! The scenario above re us is just one example. We are choosing to spend more than we possibly should just now.

Any club relegated from any league would have a similar dilemma. If you penalise for over spending compared to income, you would be effectively saying cut your cloth as soon as you get relegated, and that would have the potential to segregate the leagues further..

potential mind..! In principal I agree on tighter more stringent financial oversight, with sanctions for breaches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

This would be great but if you follow the SFA/hibs0666 model, you could only take action against clubs that you weren't desperate to keep around for short term commercial reasons. So you could punish Gretna but not the new Rangers.

There's no point overhauling the rules until we have football authorities that recognise the value of applying them.

---

Without fear or favour. Reputations aren't worth spit. That's one thing we need to have learned from Rangers debacle.

Hypothetically if Celtc failed to produce annual audited accounts to the League body then they should be relegated as far as I'm concerned. But they won't because they will always produce accounts (plc) and Peter Lawell runs that club well.

Same with the Brown family at St Johnstone and the people running Inverness. These two are model clubs.

For me Scottish Football will move on once the SFA charge the Hun with CHEATING, find them guilty of CHEATING and punish them for CHEATING. No mealy-mouth, half-way statments like they maybe 'attempted to secure advantages that other teams couldn't get' or that they 'arranged the circumstances that were beneficial to them only' etc, etc. CHEATING is what they have done and CHEATING should be quite clearly stated in the paper-work !.

Finally, once the pertinent titles/trophies are voided, the Hun MUST apologise to the millions of Scottish Football Fans who spent their hard-earned money for a period of just over 10 years, going along to what they thought were COMPETITIVE football-matches when they were anything but !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

For me Scottish Football will move on once the SFA charge the Hun with CHEATING, find them guilty of CHEATING and punish them for CHEATING. No mealy-mouth, half-way statments like they maybe 'attempted to secure advantages that other teams couldn't get' or that they 'arranged the circumstances that were beneficial to them only' etc, etc. CHEATING is what they have done and CHEATING should be quite clearly stated in the paper-work !.

Finally, once the pertinent titles/trophies are voided, the Hun MUST apologise to the millions of Scottish Football Fans who spent their hard-earned money for a period of just over 10 years, going along to what they thought were COMPETITIVE football-matches when they were anything but !!

---

The tax case blog made a good point that everyone of the rangers players on the pitch at easter road when they won the league (by a point) was paid through an EBT which they had the opportunity to disclose to HRMC 2 years earlier, but choose not to.

Very implausible to think they would have had that same team had they put their hands up earlier (if they ever have)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deansy

For me Scottish Football will move on once the SFA charge the Hun with CHEATING, find them guilty of CHEATING and punish them for CHEATING. No mealy-mouth, half-way statments like they maybe 'attempted to secure advantages that other teams couldn't get' or that they 'arranged the circumstances that were beneficial to them only' etc, etc. CHEATING is what they have done and CHEATING should be quite clearly stated in the paper-work !.

Finally, once the pertinent titles/trophies are voided, the Hun MUST apologise to the millions of Scottish Football Fans who spent their hard-earned money for a period of just over 10 years, going along to what they thought were COMPETITIVE football-matches when they were anything but !!

---

I don't really understand the argument that fans went to the football thinking it was competitive, and now we realise it wasn't.
The fans went to games, and saw competitive matches. By the time rangers had signed these players the cheating was done. We couldn't care less how they were getting paid after that. The actual matches were still competitive, and we took points off rangers in the EBT era. It's not like match fixing was taking place.
I do understand though that they were more likely to win as they bought better players and paid them illegally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernz

I don't really understand the argument that fans went to the football thinking it was competitive, and now we realise it wasn't.
The fans went to games, and saw competitive matches. By the time rangers had signed these players the cheating was done. We couldn't care less how they were getting paid after that. The actual matches were still competitive, and we took points off rangers in the EBT era. It's not like match fixing was taking place.
I do understand though that they were more likely to win as they bought better players and paid them illegally.

---

:agree: Wasn't match-fixing. More like tournament-fixing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernz

I don't really understand the argument that fans went to the football thinking it was competitive, and now we realise it wasn't.
The fans went to games, and saw competitive matches. By the time rangers had signed these players the cheating was done. We couldn't care less how they were getting paid after that. The actual matches were still competitive, and we took points off rangers in the EBT era. It's not like match fixing was taking place.
I do understand though that they were more likely to win as they bought better players and paid them illegally.

---

Hibs, Celtic et al entered games thinking that all clubs were sticking to the rules and regulations of the game as laid down by the SFA. Subsequently it turned out rules were being broken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Hibs, Celtic et al entered games thinking that all clubs were sticking to the rules and regulations of the game as laid down by the SFA. Subsequently it turned out rules were being broken.

---

Yes but the consequence of that rule break (the good players) was there for Hibs, Celtic et al to see before a ball was kicked. The fans still saw a competitive game of football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernz

Yes but the consequence of that rule break (the good players) was there for Hibs, Celtic et al to see before a ball was kicked. The fans still saw a competitive game of football.

---

...but clubs might have won more games against Rangers if the rule break didn't give them an edge. They competitive games of football but Rangers gave themselves more chance of winning by giving players dodgy payments i.e. cheating.

Maybe if Rangers had spelled Lorenzo Amoruso's name wrong on his forms they would have been chucked out of competitions/cups but slipping him an extra £5M tax free is cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernz

I don't really understand the argument that fans went to the football thinking it was competitive, and now we realise it wasn't.
The fans went to games, and saw competitive matches. By the time rangers had signed these players the cheating was done. We couldn't care less how they were getting paid after that. The actual matches were still competitive, and we took points off rangers in the EBT era. It's not like match fixing was taking place.
I do understand though that they were more likely to win as they bought better players and paid them illegally.

---

I suppose the point is that supporters have been frustrated all these years suspecting that cheating was going on but knowing it went too deep to challenge. The Internet and social media changed all that to some extent. Then along comes the open goal we have been presented with by the house of cards wobbling through collapse of one part of the duopoly and exposure of their crutch that is the combined football authorities.

In the past the SFA might have garnered support from UEFA but they have their own room of skeletons to deal with. So let's see what the various court cases reveal and let's hope we end up with a sport that's free from corrupt practices.

In a perfect world I would like to have seen the Rangers situation reach its inevitable conclusion with everyone acknowledging that their kind of cheating led to their extinction. Then a new club be formed and permitted to enter the league, within the rules, so that they could work their way back up through the leagues and inevitably fill a slot formally occupied by rangers. The same people would have followed them and had a great adventure getting their new team to the top end of the Scottish game. But in the background Rangers FC would be there for all time alongside clubs like Third Lanark, Airdrionians and Gretna as a warning in history of the folly that can befall clubs who overextend.

IMHO that scenario would have worked just fine for all concerned up to and including the Rangers supporters. And I believe Scottish football would have gone from strength to strength as a result. Sadly it seems that the people who govern our game nor did it work for the self interested few who had ambitions to run the new Rangers. That was when we dug a huge hole and it is a mess that may never be resolved without the painful process we are now going through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kato

Hibs, Celtic et al entered games thinking that all clubs were sticking to the rules and regulations of the game as laid down by the SFA. Subsequently it turned out rules were being broken.

---

Celtc ran up a bank debt that went north of £30m, bear in mind they also had annual Champions League humiliation cash thrown at them in this era. They also experimented with EBTs and high earners of the club such as Sutton, Lawell, Riley, Lennon, Thomson admittedly on an individual basis, sought to minimize their own tax bills through investments in various tax avoidance schemes now being chased with the same vigour as EBTs are by HMRC.

Would not say they are a great example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

But you're not offering a way to achieve that. Simply putting our head in the sand and saying "well that was all a bit dodgy" then carrying on as before cannot be an option. The beaks have had nothing to say on this and if they say and do nothing then they must be made to do so

---

The problem the authorities have is that many of the core issues that they would rather kept swept under the carpet are being forensically analysed in the courts, so they are unable (probably for the first time in my lifetime) to simply ignore it. The triumvirate of (The) Rangers, Celtic and SFA are under pressure like never before, despite their media buddies defending the barricades as they have always done. IMO there's a genuine chance of change for the greater good coming out of this Sevco mess. Maybe this is what Reagan meant when he talked about Armageddon :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bernz

Yes but the consequence of that rule break (the good players) was there for Hibs, Celtic et al to see before a ball was kicked. The fans still saw a competitive game of football.

---

I can see your point. We did see competitive games as in 11 against 11.

If we put in the heavyweight champ of the world in a ring with the light featherweight champ there in my eyes would only be one outcome.
If you stick the heavyweight champ in over a year with another so many lightweight fighters then over the year there may be 1 or 2 upsets but the outcome is a certainty.
Each fight would be a contest but not a fair contest that's why boxing has a governing body to regulate the contests.

The Rangers were flexing bigger muscles( players) due to steriods(EBT's) and have been caught.

What we need is a governing body who will treat every club in the land with the same rules and regulations and implement them irrespective of who why where when they were. Broken and take action against ALL clubs breaking them.

GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Onion

The problem the authorities have is that many of the core issues that they would rather kept swept under the carpet are being forensically analysed in the courts, so they are unable (probably for the first time in my lifetime) to simply ignore it. The triumvirate of (The) Rangers, Celtic and SFA are under pressure like never before, despite their media buddies defending the barricades as they have always done. IMO there's a genuine chance of change for the greater good coming out of this Sevco mess. Maybe this is what Reagan meant when he talked about Armageddon :greengrin

---

👍 Agreed. And it is a significant point that Celtic are no angels in this. The duopoly of Rangers and Celtic was propped up by our football association for far too many years. If they are squeezed hard enough the pips will pop out and the game has a fighting chance of being played on a level playing field for the first time probably since the second war and certainly since the largest percentage of tv revenues and SPL/SPFL money was diverted towards only two clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

 Agreed. And it is a significant point that Celtic are no angels in this. The duopoly of Rangers and Celtic was propped up by our football association for far too many years. If they are squeezed hard enough the pips will pop out and the game has a fighting chance of being played on a level playing field for the first time probably since the second war and certainly since the largest percentage of tv revenues and SPL/SPFL money was diverted towards only two clubs.

---

I think the caveat to this is that it does not seem unreasonable of course, for there to be two or three clubs in a country who tend to dominate proceedings. That could be due to population, the historical growth of the clubs or success that translates to power. If you look at most leagues in Europe, most countries have a couple of top teams. I'm perfectly prepared to accept that two teams with stadiums that can accommodate 50k people week in week out are likely to have more reach than those who have 20, 15, 10 or 5k fanbases.

Where this is a bang-on point is how the duopoly has then been advantaged by the SFA feathering their nests even further, through distribution of media rights, enhanced voting rights and so on.

The level playing field I want to see isn't so much ensuring that clubs that are big are reined back, but I certainly don't expect to see them treated as protected species and have the rule books and balance sheets altered to enhance their status even more at the expense of everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndyM_1875

I agree with that. As is known I have absolutely no time for the Phil McGobbledygooks of this world and the other Sellik minded bigots who are trying to sell me their agenda but as a whole I would suggest Scottish football needs rigourous financial controls put in place far more than it needs more thashing of the Rangers panto.

I'd suggest the following could be a start.
1) Each club should aim to break even every year. Clubs which continually post losses year on year without address to point 2 shall be called before the SFA/SPFL where points deductions may apply the next season.

2) Existing bank debts and loansheld by clubs should be actively paid down and progress should be seen year on year in this area. Failure to address points 1 and 2 shall result in automatic relegation.

3) Clubs which do not submit audited accounts and are also in breach or points 1 and 2 shall be automatically relegated to the bottom tier.

---

Simplistic tosh.

I would bet that points 1 and 2 could not be enforced as they would be in restraint of trade and any club so penalised could get it set aside.

UEFAs Financial Fair Play rules have been quietly watered down because of the threat of legal action. No team would be able to rebuild a stadium.

Apart from all else it would probably have put pretty well every major club in Scotland out of business by now. Hibs would have fell foul in the early 1990s and again around 2000. Celtic would have gone circa 1992, so would Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Aberdeen, Dundee (two or three times), Partick Thistle, Livingston, aside from the real offenders (Rangers and Hearts).

How many people would pay to see a League consisting of St Johnstone, Inverness and, possibly Dundee United?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgl07

Simplistic tosh.

I would bet that points 1 and 2 could not be enforced as they would be in restraint of trade and any club so penalised could get it set aside.

UEFAs Financial Fair Play rules have been quietly watered down because of the threat of legal action. No team would be able to rebuild a stadium.

Apart from all else it would probably have put pretty well every major club in Scotland out of business by now. Hibs would have fell foul in the early 1990s and again around 2000. Celtic would have gone circa 1992, so would Kilmarnock, Motherwell, Aberdeen, Dundee (two or three times), Partick Thistle, Livingston, aside from the real offenders (Rangers and Hearts).

How many people would pay to see a League consisting of St Johnstone, Inverness and, possibly Dundee United?

---

If St Johnstone, Inverness and Dundee United are the only clubs not breaking the Financial rules then so be it.
If my team is falling foul of the financial rules then they take their medicine and suck it up.

Lower league clubs like East Stirling, East Fife and Cowdenbeath work to break even. They have no big bank debts. If they are relegated then they budget at a lower level and play kids.
Why should bigger clubs be any different? The one thing on this thread is that fans have complained about teams living way beyond their means.
My suggestion isn't about the past, that's done but lessons need to be learned.

Still... if you have a better suggestion that offers a bit more sophistication than some zoomer in a Celtc shirt shouting 'Strip the Titles' then I'm all ears.