They've had 13 years to grow taller tho. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Printable View
They've had 13 years to grow taller tho. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
What were the attendances like in Season 97/98 though?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
To be fair, it was a 1 year embargo so no point in starting it in the middle of a transfer window.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Let's remember that the transfer embargo itself was an SFA/SPL cock up. They were NEVER going to suspend or throw out the Huns (they pretty much stated this was too harsh at the original tribunal) so it was either the embargo or another piddling fine.
I think the embargo, as ineffectual as it might turn out to be, is still going to be more of a nuisance to the hun than a £100k fine.
And don't forget Ogilvie!Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
He has been keeping a low profile recently, but remember that he was the recipient of an EBT and was well aware of what was going on.
It may be more of a nuisance in the longer term. If the marquee signings :greengrin don't attract the ST sales, then there will be cash-flow problems very soon. One can see the possibility of having to sell players, perhaps in January, with no ability to replace them.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
He's been dreaming again...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Hun Tool
Season 1997/98 - SPL- 19 games - Capacity 16281Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Total - 228475
Highest - 15565
Average - 12025
All attendance stats can be found here
http://www.fitbastats.com/hibs/club_...attendance.php
Unfortunately this is trueQuote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
So it is a myth. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
As regards the signing ban, if it kicks in in the first minute of September 1st this season, does that mean that it expires on the last day of August 2013? - thus they cannot sign any players over 18 years old for 2 full transfer windows (to end of Jan and August 2013)?
If so, I think that in fact this is a decent punishment, as effectively they can't make any signings until January 2014 window - albeit they can sign players up to the 1st September 2012.
Is this correct? :confused:
So the average attendance DID drop by a significant amount. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
A lot of noise has been made about this 'deal' and current offences, feels like a bit of misdirection to me. Therefore my thoughts are that the deal will be based on what is lurking in the background still to come out of which could potentially kill the club and put former and present custodians in a rather difficult legal position. Perhaps given the 'deal' is in place, it is due to the subsequent brushing under the carpet of explosive issues we do not know about?? Deal with the devil perchance?
Shooting off on another topic.
Sunday's match at Brechin.
No doubt 3/4000 Rangers fans will turn up with a belligerent wha's like us attitude and treat the assembled Brechin fans, neutrals and TV audience to their full repertoire of bigoted sectarian songs.
I don't know if there are any sanctions for such behaviour in the SFL Rulebook but it will be interesting to see the reaction to what I think is the certainty of their misbehaviour. Will Brechin's finest take any action on the day? Will it solely be a matter for SFL, or do SFA, the compliance officer or EUFA get involved? Will we be treated to another outburst from Mr McCoist?
Oh, and by the way, I don't think I've seen anything about outcome of the investigation into the behaviour of the Rangers fans at the home match against Kilmarnock immediately after administration was announced. Has it been swept under the carpet too?
aye, that's correct. Its why I changed my mind about it, originally I thought it was a waste of time :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by HibbyRod
Might be missing something here, but isn't the force of your sentence above "Rangers expected to reform and walk away from their financial responsibilities, but, apart from walking away from all the people they owed money to, they have not been allowed to do this." :hmmm:Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
My understanding was that the season in the first division resulted in a loss of £2.7m. When did Rod say it was £5m?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
I thought they were boycotting everybody?Quote:
Originally Posted by Famous Fiver
Is that £5m?!? I doubt our turnover was £5m that year!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
Sorry to keep banging on about this Stevie but the SFA are asking Rangers to accept the the original tribunal's decision which was a 1 year transfer embargo with immediate effect from when the tribunal sat.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
They have tweeked it in a deal with Sevco that they will 'accept' embargo( very good of them when alternative is suspension or expulsion) but only on proviso that it starts on 1st Sept when window shuts.
Rangers wouldn't accept original embargo because it wouldn't allow debt free 'the Rangers' to sign any players this season, in other words it was a PUNISHMENT. They and the SFA are now happy to move forward that they have negotiated the new embargo which on paper is a punishment but really is nothing of the sort.
As I said above, it could turn out to be more of a punishment than the original proposal. The original one would have had them cutting their financial cloth prudently. This one could have them struggling by Christmas.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
I hope you are right but the cynic in me finds it More likely that their legal team will probably find them a loophole enabling them to sign further players in January.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Cynic? You? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Sorry, couldn't resist it!!! :na na:
What is the use of straining after an amiable view of things, when a cynical view is most likely to be the true one?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Georg Bernard Shaw.:cb
Average attendance for 97/98 was 12,025; 98/99 (Div 1) 10,433 and 99/00 11,603.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
There is an argument that as div 1 teams carried, generally, smaller visiting supports therefore the home attendances increased. It is a reasonable argument to make and cant be proved or disproved either way and what a persons overall view is seems to depend on the point they are trying to make.
I obviously meant in footballing terms. The rest were pretty much "bumped" the minute they entered administration, we all knew that.Quote:
Originally Posted by reallapsedhibee
I was refering to the fact they had been trying to get out of paying Sion, Hearts, Dundee United, etc. but they haven't managed to do that. I'm sure this was close to £3m, so that will dent their projected budget quite a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
The original "punishment" was deemed to be illegal, as I said "an SFA/SPL cock up".
I suspect that if it was back-dated to original tribunal date there would be legal connotations. They had to reach a compromise and that compromise has been to allow them to get players in for div 3 instead of div 2 next season.
Personally I think it will be harder for them to attract players in the next few weeks than it would be next summer as div 3 champions.
They will need to pay a decent wage to compensate playing in div 3 and they will need to pay it for at least 2 years.
The "decent wage" bit is key for me, this is putting financial pressure on them. They NEED to sign players that will ensure an SFL2 title and probably also have an eye on league reconstruction which would add even more pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
On phone so can't look them up (at least one was posted a few pages ago tho) but a few sources seem to indicate that just to stand still Newco need around 35-40,000minimum season ticket holders, any shortfall or additional expenditure is going to have to come out of all the financial backers, about 3 of them in total on last look!
Some of the hints that they'll need re-financing in the 2nd half of the season or will be staring Admin in the face again might not be that far off. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
This is something I can't understand either signing guys on £7k a week to play in the 3rd division seems like financial suicide. Am I right in thinking the embargo means they can't even sell a player if they need to? The costs of running an operation like Rangers which doesn't seem to have 'downsized' at all despite the circumstances surely will lead to administration again. Unless of course they decide to pay staff using EBT's :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
I'm pretty sure they can sell players during the embargo - they cannot sign players over 18 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse
It seems like bad management, but also fear and ego. They don't need a top-two-SPL side to romp through the divisions. Their youngsters, plus the best of the players signed from lower league clubs, would do that just as well, and not place them in financial difficulties. I think the real fear is that such a side would be badly turned over by SPL teams in cup competitions, and they wouldn't be able to handle that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazyhorse