Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

Am I missing something or do season ticket fans not generally get in for 'free' given that they've already paid for their season tickets??

---

Don't thinks so unless the Administrators allow them to get in for free! :wink:

The Admninistrators are not bound by any contracts entered into before they were appointed unless they agree to be bound by them! Apparently they have stated that they will not be bound by the ST contracts but will allow ST holders in for free on Saturday. Probably won't for subsequent games as they will require income to meet the wages and operating costs as they fall due I imagine! :confused:

The league survived going from the old bumper Sky to deal to pennies from the BBC, they'd survive a drop in TV money due to there being no Rangers just the same.

Doesn't mean cutbacks wouldn't have to be made, but the idea that the league would crumble is a nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottB

The league survived going from the old bumper Sky to deal to pennies from the BBC, they'd survive a drop in TV money due to there being no Rangers just the same.

Doesn't mean cutbacks wouldn't have to be made, but the idea that the league would crumble is a nonsense.

---

Have Hibs not said recently its not the TV money that keeps us going its people attending games that provide the bulk of income, if so and Sky pull the plug on the tv deal then it could mean more people through the gate as it would be more competative and better chances for everyone else to get a european space.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killie-hibby

Why LOL?

---

I thought it was funny.

But I take it you're not joking then?

If you look at the posts on the previous page (WindyMiller etc.), you will see the extent to which Hibs benefit from TV money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

+ All revenues generated by the SPL are effectively put into one pot. This money comes from TV deals and other commercial contracts.

+ A support payment to the SFL and parachute payments to recently relegated clubs are then removed. All associated costs of running the SPL are also deducted.

+ The remaining amount is split two ways to the member clubs: 48% is divided equally between all 12 clubs while 52% is distributed to teams dependant upon their final league position.

+ The higher up the table that a club finishes, the more money they will receive - see table below. For season 2007/08, more than £18m was paid out to SPL clubs.

League position - % of cash pot

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%
2 - 4% + 11% = 15%
3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%
4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%
5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%
6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%
7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%
8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%
9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%
10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%
11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

We probably fall in the middle somewhere, giving us about 7.5% of the pot.
If that's the same for the new contract, that would give us a maximum of 7.5% of £80m over 5 years= £1.2m per season.

---

Losing the TV money could be a problem but IMO it depends on what circumstances. If it was because rangers are relegated to the third division I think it would make for a better league as it would be more competative for european places. We have been banging on for years about having a more competative league, yes it would now be a one horse race for celtic each year but for european spots it would be more competative. That sort of thing could easily boost attendances. 3500 extra people through the gate each game could plug that 1.2M hole. As other have said, the league and club have survived with small TV deals before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thekaratekid

It's worrying that someone at Duff & Phelps assisted Whyte with the takeover of Rangers.

I thought administrators were meant to be wholly independent?

---

That pisses me off. I took one look at the administrator and am convinced he will be one of whyte's henchmen. How hmrc weren't allowed to appoint is completely baffling. No doubt contingency plans in place! The whole thing is starting to stink imo. I seriously hope I am proved wrong.

http://twitpic.com/8kf2dy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TornadoHibby

Don't thinks so unless the Administrators allow them to get in for free! :wink:

The Admninistrators are not bound by any contracts entered into before they were appointed unless they agree to be bound by them! Apparently they have stated that they will not be bound by the ST contracts but will allow ST holders in for free on Saturday. Probably won't for subsequent games as they will require income to meet the wages and operating costs as they fall due I imagine! :confused:

---

That's brilliant! :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverhibee

http://twitpic.com/8kf2dy

---

Arabs banning fans bit is a nice touch. Hope that is a trend that catches on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HibeeBigFly

Arabs banning fans bit is a nice touch. Hope that is a trend that catches on.

---

They're not banning fans. That would be stupid,

They are asking for the money from RFC first, before they let them have tickets. That's only sensible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

They're not banning fans. That would be stupid,

They are asking for the money from RFC first, before they let them have tickets. That's only sensible.

---

Didn't read the small print. I just live in hope of rangers free stadiums. Fingers crossed we are rid of that lovely bunch for a few season. On a side note do most teams not sell to them direct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Missed this bit. Who said the Government were bailing them out?

---

Nobody did. Salmond said that Rangers and HMRC should talk in an attempt to reach argreement on how Rangers can pay what's due. The sports minister (Robison) said that the Government will assist with any fall-out (ie young players or normal employees being laid off by the administrator). No bailout or forgiveness. In any case, the Scottish Parliament doesn't have the legal authority to do that.

The only politician I have read who has explicitly called for HMRC to go easy on Rangers is Brian Donohoe, a backbench Labour MP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

Nobody did. Salmond said that Rangers and HMRC should talk in an attempt to reach argreement on how Rangers can pay what's due. The sports minister (Robison) said that the Government will assist with any fall-out (ie young players or normal employees being laid off by the administrator). No bailout or forgiveness. In any case, the Scottish Parliament doesn't have the legal authority to do that.

The only politician I have read who has explicitly called for HMRC to go easy on Rangers is Brian Donohoe, a backbench Labour MP.

---

Yeah, I know. I was being facetious earlier to the poster who was talking about them being bailed out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKV88...eature=related

Even if Rangers go bust, at least they gave us this wonderful moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I thought it was funny.

But I take it you're not joking then?

If you look at the posts on the previous page (WindyMiller etc.), you will see the extent to which Hibs benefit from TV money.

---

Not joking. WindyMiller calculates TV money as £1.2m per season for Hibs. I calculate this as £63158 for each of our 19 home games. For category B matches at £22 and £12 for concessions, we would likely average £17 per walk up admission. Therefore 3715 walk ups required to cover the loss of TV money. Over recent seasons our crowds at televised matches have been lower than when playing the same teams in the absence of TV. I agree with other posters that without live TV crowds at Hibs and other SPL clubs would increase to a level which would more than compensate for the loss of TV money. Scottish football is being suffocated by the demands of TV companies. IMOP TV money has not been advantageous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killie-hibby

Not joking. WindyMiller calculates TV money as £1.2m per season for Hibs. I calculate this as £63158 for each of our 19 home games. For category B matches at £22 and £12 for concessions, we would likely average £17 per walk up admission. Therefore 3715 walk ups required to cover the loss of TV money. Over recent seasons our crowds at televised matches have been lower than when playing the same teams in the absence of TV. I agree with other posters that without live TV crowds at Hibs and other SPL clubs would increase to a level which would more than compensate for the loss of TV money. Scottish football is being suffocated by the demands of TV companies. IMOP TV money has not been advantageous.

---

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood the tone of your initial question.

3700 extra punters is a steep increase. That's about the number of walk-ups we have at the moment, no? So we would have to double the walk-ups.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see 12-13,000 every week. Just don't know if it's likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

Nobody did. Salmond said that Rangers and HMRC should talk in an attempt to reach argreement on how Rangers can pay what's due. The sports minister (Robison) said that the Government will assist with any fall-out (ie young players or normal employees being laid off by the administrator). No bailout or forgiveness. In any case, the Scottish Parliament doesn't have the legal authority to do that.

The only politician I have read who has explicitly called for HMRC to go easy on Rangers is Brian Donohoe, a backbench Labour MP.

---

I can recall Jim Murphy saying they should be bailed out in the past back when the tax case came to light, yet another reason to dislike him :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood the tone of your initial question.

3700 extra punters is a steep increase. That's about the number of walk-ups we have at the moment, no? So we would have to double the walk-ups.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see 12-13,000 every week. Just don't know if it's likely.

---

My thinking is on the basis of ten SPL clubs being given a huge boost by Rangers being in administration and hopefully eventual liquidation. The psycophantic media believe Sky would withdraw their current SPL agreement if Rangers are kicked out. If that happens the habit of attending matches at 3pm on Saturdays and the realistic possibility of finishing second would boost crowds. I have stopped going to early KO,s. More than likely I am not the only one.
The general opinion is that the standard of Scottish football has being going down the plughole. Television has not helped, its time to get back to basics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killie-hibby

My thinking is on the basis of ten SPL clubs being given a huge boost by Rangers being in administration and hopefully eventual liquidation. The psycophantic media believe Sky would withdraw their current SPL agreement if Rangers are kicked out. If that happens the habit of attending matches at 3pm on Saturdays and the realistic possibility of finishing second would boost crowds. I have stopped going to early KO,s. More than likely I am not the only one.
The general opinion is that the standard of Scottish football has being going down the plughole. Television has not helped, its time to get back to basics.

---

Agreed.

I live in Glasgow, even at that distance making an evening kick off after work is pretty much impossible, and an early kick off a right pain in the ass if god forbid you like the slightest hint of a lie in on a day off!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gringojoe

***** them. Perfect operchancity for them to start as a brand new club in Englandshire as they have always wanted to move there as Scottish football held them back.

---

Good shout,.

I can't believe there are posters on here advocating we can't survive without the huns because of tv/home game revenue. I know plenty fans who don't attend OF games on a variety of principles that I don't btw agree with.

Similarly, our crowds would increase if we were more competitive as we would be from the demise of one of our rivals.

Don't do the huns job for them. C'mon HMRC!

I'd rather watch amateur quality football if it meant those **** were gone forever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green glory

The SNP are no friend of RFC. Public statements about support will be regarding people losing their jobs which is fair enough. Lip-service that's all.

---

I hope so

OK, couple of points. Never saw the interview with Salmond however I cannot believe a politician would come out and defend wholeheartedly the very group who completely disagree with his main policy and unlikely to vote for his party anyhoo.

Not often I disagree with M59 but I believe the televised football matches drag down the attendances to a level lower than TV income benefits, therefore no problem for me to go back to seeing 2 or 3 games a season live on TV. I do however see a problem where kids growing up whose fathers have not a lot of interest in live football also become the same and nurture an affinity for teams from SKY and ESPN rather than a local team.

Der Hun have to be pursued for every penny they owe. We do not owe anything to these guys or their history. It is good that certain people are starting to argue against saving them at any cost. That money must be recouped in the current financial climate and I would hope the government would eventually step in and make some sort of comment.

The attractiveness of a season ticket has been gradually eroded over a number of years due to numerous reasons, including increased seating, and TV schedules. At one point it was a good bit cheaper, than attending as an ever present walk up fan. After all seated stadia was introduced, ST's meant you could sit beside your friends, at all games, especially the "big games", and not have to queue for tickets. All our "big games" at home are now on TV, at times that are not conducive to all ST holders, with a significant reduction in our home support. The loss of Rangers, their "benefit" to Scottish football through advertising and TV revenue, would be negligible, and if more supporters attended the game, rather than watch it on TV, Hibs, IMO, would benefit more, in a more competitive league, with little or no TV coverage.

GGTTH

So if rangers or Celtic were to be relegated for whatever reason sky have the option to pull out of the t. Deal? That's a pathetic clause for the SPL to allow and totally puts into perspective how it's one rule for them and another for everyone else. **** sky and espn give us a league without em

If Sky want to pull out of the T V deal because of a shortage of Bigot-fests let them.

What Scottish Football needs is a decent TV deal with the BBC providing a good quality highlights program and a set number of live games in a season.

At the moment the BBC spends about one hundredth of the cash on Scottish Football than it does on the block coverage given to all aspects of the game in England.

10% of the License Fee money comes from Scotland and the SPL and politicians eager to gain some credibility from footballs current problems should be raising this inequality with the BBC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killie-hibby

My thinking is on the basis of ten SPL clubs being given a huge boost by Rangers being in administration and hopefully eventual liquidation. The psycophantic media believe Sky would withdraw their current SPL agreement if Rangers are kicked out. If that happens the habit of attending matches at 3pm on Saturdays and the realistic possibility of finishing second would boost crowds. I have stopped going to early KO,s. More than likely I am not the only one.
The general opinion is that the standard of Scottish football has being going down the plughole. Television has not helped, its time to get back to basics.

---

Agreed. Although it was in a different financial climate when we were guilty of spending beyond our means, you only need to go back to the First Division season in 98-99. When we went on that great run ER was packed and buzzing. No OF and any TV deal (to speak of) in these days. I'm sure PF will have us challenging at the very top end again and the crowds will return. Having one of the OF missing only strengthens that challenge imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

Agreed. Although it was in a different financial climate when we were guilty of spending beyond our means, you only need to go back to the First Division season in 98-99. When we went on that great run ER was packed and buzzing. No OF and any TV deal (to speak of) in these days. I'm sure PF will have us challenging at the very top end again and the crowds will return. Having one of the OF missing only strengthens that challenge imo.

---

Totally agree.

The TV deal line is a joke - the game is currently badly broken here as it is. I'd happily see what happens without one or either of the OF and without a TV deal.

From the bits on this thread i've looked at I can see two prevailing arguments. 1. That Hibs benefit more from the TV deal than if it wasn't there and 2. Hibs would benefit more or equally from no tv games and increased walk ups. What I would argue is that it shouldn't be a question of figures of current TV earnings and current attendance, but rather a question of how Hibs would be relative to the other SPL teams. For example, Hibs may lose 1.2 million a season from the TV deal, but so would every other SPL side. What we need is someone who can work out how the removal of Rangers and the TV deal would impact on Hibs in comparison to other SPL sides. Then we make a decision based on that. Part of me wants Rangers to die and never return, but the other part thinks what if keeping Rangers in the SPL actually benefits Hibs in comparison to the other sides. Are we better placed, or worse placed, than the other sides to handle life after Rangers? If anyone has any formula to work it out then throw it into the mix!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamig

Just short - but they still loaned more to SMEs almost as much as the other banks combined.

---

Failed on the no1 benchmark (IMHO) then. Nae bonus fully merited :cb