Yea that wot i heard so i'm thinking every 2nd week be a div3 game.....would be looking for a reduction not an increase!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn
Printable View
Yea that wot i heard so i'm thinking every 2nd week be a div3 game.....would be looking for a reduction not an increase!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldy Foghorn
There is 1 solution and thats to cancel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
if everybody who has extreme disgust towards der hun cancelled their packages, SKY would lose millions.
Unfortunately, people won't. (even those who lie and say they will)
Sky Sports News understands that they'll need to buy a foreign language phrasebook before taking the outside broadcast truck to Stranraer, or as they would call it in the 'Clayhool' itself, a 'firin linguige frizbick kin' :tee hee:
I hope that is the case.. It means our kick off times are less likely to be disrupted.Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scot...ools-goal.html
Check out this pish from Davie Provan.
Did Hibs get £900,000 for finishing 11th last season? And why does he say it will be £80,000 for the same placing next year? Have I missed something or is this buffoon plucking figures out of thin air? :confused:
"the Hoops will suffer most"Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
That quote from his article should help pinpoint the venomous reasoning behind his sad rant. He is spewing about the fact there'll be no OF derby games for the next few years, no doubt a nice little earner for an ex-Celtic "legend", and letting fly with both barrels at the insignificant also-rans of Scottish football.
Personally, I wouldn't pay much attention to him.
No it doesn't. Next season, season 2013-14 they will be able to sign out of contract players from Sept 1st. From Sept 1st 2013 they will be able to sign players in similar contract positions to Shiels and Black. In other words they can sign as many players as they want next season as they can this season. The only time they won't be able to sign players is this January. It's a con.Quote:
Originally Posted by Twa Cairpets
It's amazing that in ALL these articles by paid up members of the OF gravy train the blame is always the SFA, the SPL, the SPL chairmen, SFL chairmen or the fans of diddy clubs but never, NEVER, is any blame apportioned to Rangers and their various guardians for any financial consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
It's like painting a murderer as a victim and blaming the judge and jury for the consequence of his actions.
But it is nice to know for definite from Provan's article that MJ did the write thing and all the rest of the SPL chairman are idiots for not wanting Rangers in! :wink:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
" + 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% "
Hibs would get 5% of £18m, that's £0.9m minus the bits in bold.
Why it would drop by 90% next year is anyone's guess!
How will they be allowed to sign out of contract players? Is it not a registration ban?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Greens chat in the papers today is a disgrace. Rangers problems at an end but now other clubs will be the ones in trouble. No shame.
In 2007/2008 up till last season the Sky money was £13m per season, due to change to £16m this season. If it was to drop 90% its not worth doing IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Do you know the breakdown of the £18m figure Windy?
But if the ban started now, they'd be signing them in July next year and have them for pre-season. They wouldn't have to be limited to out of contract players either. In September next year they will be limited to players that no-one else wants and they'll have to start the season without them - not that that's going to be much of a problem in the lower leagues. Right now, they're looking to sign players of a higher standard than they need on long contracts and paying over the odd for them in the hope that it attracts season ticket buyers. If the likes of Ian Black or Craig Beattie aren't going to sign for Hibs I'd rather they were playing in the third division and taking money out of Rangers than for one of our SPL opponents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Agree with you on this one. There's only one club to blame for the shambles that Scottish football is in, if any clubs do go bust in the coming seasons it will be Rangers FC's fault. We must never let them forget that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
And what is conviently forgotten by the all the Hun apologists is that one club has already gone bust and thats them. Not only have they gone bust but have they broken the rules as laid down by footballs governing bodies, rules which all clubs (including them) had agreed to abide by.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Add in tax evasion (IMHO) on a massive scale which, under any other circumstances, would guarantee a prison sentence to the perpetrator(s). I believe in benefit fraud there is a threshold which, if breached, guarantees a prison sentence. The same rules should apply to Rangers (who soon will no longer exist), the custodians of the club who knew about it and failed in their duties as directors, and I would not exclude the beneficiaries of the scheme if they signed up (as is alleged) knowing this this was a scheme which was set up primarily to avoid paying tax. I did notice in Dodds statement he was very clear that tax was already deducted from the payment he recieved. You pays (receives!) your money you takes your chance.
Embargo ends Sept 1st 2013.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy74
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
If the ban was was from the original date set they wouldn't be able to sign players this season which in my mind is a suitable punishment.
In Summer next year they will line up the players they want with an agreement to sign them on September the first. If players similar in ilk to Shiels, Beattie and Black were floating around they will simply do a pre contract thing with them. This may be a verbal agreement as not sure if pre contracts are allowed under terms of embargo.
Another piece by Paul McConville:
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.co...rs-registered/
A few interesting points to add to that - Brechin's chairman Ken Feguson is a solicitor, so he would be expected to understand these points, and he would not be acting in the best interests of his club if he failed to raise an objection.
Also, I seem to remember that City were chucked out of a cup (probably the Scottish) a few years ago for fielding ineligible players.
I have cancelled mine and bought a freesat plus box. Does everything sky+ does but has no sky channels. One off payment to buy, connect to existing cables and off you go:greengrin:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by wee_hibee
Fan power made sure Rangers were dealt with properly, its time the media were purged of the lying, hun a*rs- licking impostors that we have for football journalists in Scotland.
Difficulty is how could we threaten to boycott buying the Sun or the Record ? :greengrin
May'be telling anybody who advertises in those rags that we won't do business with them until the newspaper's sports columns are properly fumigated.
It doesn't really matter if they sign players now or not, they'd still have enough to win the third division with what they have plus some decent under-eighteens, so arguably that would be a bit of a non-punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
If the ban started now they wouldn't have to line up players with pre-contracts etc next season, they'd be able to sign them straight away, the only difference is that now those players won't be available for the start of the season. They also have to depend on players of that quality a) being available and b) being prepared to wait to play in the second division rather than start the season at the right time and at a higher level.
No doubt they'll find some if they need them, but I think Black and anyone else who chooses to sign for them are fools who could well find themselves dumped and consigned to lower division obscurity as soon as Rangers find their way back to the top division .
They're bust. They are a new club now. They should be allowed to start a fresh. No old debts or other 'punishments'.
They've been allowed in to the 3rd over other more qualified clubs. That's a generous offer.
Drop the embargo, they are a new club. Drop other sanctions.
Duel contracts to still be investigated. No relation to old club.
Let's get back to football. Whilst it's a huge event in Scottish football, and amusing, let's get in with it.
And the SPL should not be tryin to take their rights IMO.
SPL money shared evenly would do perfectly.
Which is all very well BUT it's they themselves that are claiming they are a continuation of the club that went bust. It is also worth remebering the reasons they went bust and that reason, IMO, was down to criminality for which they should answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by VickMackie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
Aren't the SFA going to challenge their claim on keeping oldco history? Personally I think the notion that Sevco 5088 or "The Rangers FC 2012" = Rangers 1872-2012 is nothing but a pipe dream in Sally and his rabid hordes tiny minds. The stripped titles will be taken from oldco's record books, a dead, defunct entity that folded up with £55m, probably £140m, of unpaid debts. There is a price to pay for not paying debts, I.E, lost history!
£140M might be a ruse, I heard it could have been double that :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
Dean Shiels is apparently going to sign a 4 year deal with The Rangers. Very very disappointing. These guys should be ashamed of themselves. :no way:
The most teams are offering in premier league out with Celtic is £1500 a week. 4 year deal on this is 312,000 .rangers offering £7000 a week comes out at £1,456,000 may be disappointing but I know which one I would be taking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Why? He will be playing for one of the two biggest clubs in the Country with wages to match. He would be a fool not to snap their hands off when a four year deal has been offered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-O
Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
Can't really criticise Deano for going for the payday, the criticism lies with the SFA for allowing a club that have left a trail of over £3m in unpaid football debts sign players at all. These debts should be cleared first. But then it goes back to the oldco, newco, chicken and egg scenario. If the SFA say oldco are the same entity then it is a disgrace they were allowed to sign one player let alone pay out the wages quoted.
It seems to me that most, if not all of the players being associated with Sevco, wouldn't have had a snowball in hells chance of getting a contract with Oldco. It's a sign of the desperate times they're going through, and hopefully the straw that will break them before the season finishes, if they pay these chancers the money being quoted
This is where administration is showing up as the debt avoiding financial tool it is. Hundreds of shafted small creditors must be fuming that this club is back arrogantly throwing wages around, AGAIN.Quote:
Originally Posted by steviehibsleith