Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TQM

You have read the threads on here re life witouth the OF? There's plenty posters on here stated we couldn't live with them. Don't see it myself - I think the lack of competition has the game dying a slow and painful one. I genuinely think the game would improve without them.

---

TQM it is not often i agree with you but on this one i do. The OF have strangled the life out of the football in this country and without them i think things would be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

That herts tosser Salmond said on the news, the most important thing is the survival of Rangers football club.

Is it just me, but i'd have thought the most important thing is the payment of the tax, the tax that keeps this clown in work?

---

There is some sense in what he says. It is often better to save a business, and ensure a future revenue source for the Treasury (insert appropriate cynical smiley here), rather than throw people on to the dole and pay them benefits.

However, £49m..... :rolleyes:

Billy Dodds - "The Rangers players must be going through hell"

Come off it, any players that get released will be able to find another club without much trouble and it's not like they're earning the minimum wage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by s.a.m

I know nowt about this, but I'm assuming that the season tickets are now redundant, and their holders are now creditors? I remember reading something similar about gift tokens, and other sorts of credit, when retail chains have collapsed.



I'd probably agree with you if I thought that the money we have at present was enabling us too compete - but as far as I can see, Scottish clubs have been using the money that we get to sign mediocre journeymen, and the standard that we are getting is on a downward spiral. The status quo doesn't appear to be working. I can understand the concerns that people have about a future with much-reduced income, but can it be any worse? If this is the event that forces clubs to invest in development, then it may turn out to be a good thing.

---

So in other words they've not only ripped off HMRC but also their own fans?

Know what I'd tell them to do if they asked me to pay again for something I'd already paid for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There is some sense in what he says. It is often better to save a business, and ensure a future revenue source for the Treasury (insert appropriate cynical smiley here), rather than throw people on to the dole and pay them benefits.

However, £49m..... :rolleyes:

---

:agree:

Best outcome is that they survive and pay back the tax due (even if it is spread over 10 years, say).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Would that we had so much power :greengrin You are forgetting about the due process of law....

---

I mean, I fully expect them to dodge the tax bullet and though it's cynical in the extreme I'm not sure theres anything illegal about it, pretty morally skewed though. I mean about the pheonix companies re-admittance to the SPL, if that comes to pass they really will have got away with everything and thats something so unpalatable to me I dont think I could continue to support Hibs while they remain part of scottish football (not that they have an alternative).
The thought of which saddens me quite a bit, Hibs are a clean and well run club but if the games rigged whats the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibeesdude

stupid question alert......

the admin order is based round unpayed £9m in NI/PAYE apparently, that being the case why was it not paid
a) to pay other debts, pay the players - combo thereof
or
b) they just didnt pay it to help force the admin issue


if i'm correct one of the administrators first jobs is to see if the business is a going concern or not if the answer is a) then surely its an easy decision no money coming in to pay due debts = not going concern.
if the answer is b) then???? criminal proceedings?

---

Finally got round to answering your question :greengrin

I suspect the former. Often, if a business has cash flow problems, it's the Revenue debts that get shelved first. Wages and suppliers have to be paid in order to keep the income coming in.

However, this is CW. All assumptions are suspect! Many have said that administration was always his intention,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

There is some sense in what he says. It is often better to save a business, and ensure a future revenue source for the Treasury (insert appropriate cynical smiley here), rather than throw people on to the dole and pay them benefits.

However, £49m..... :rolleyes:

---

I dont see any sense in what he says, as in essence he's saying its fine for all of us to screw each other and not pay the taxes we owe, how does that work? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

I mean, I fully expect them to dodge the tax bullet and though it's cynical in the extreme I'm not sure theres anything illegal about it, pretty morally skewed though. I mean about the pheonix companies re-admittance to the SPL, if that comes to pass they really will have got away with everything and thats something so unpalatable to me I dont think I could continue to support Hibs while they remain part of scottish football (not that they have an alternative).
The thought of which saddens me quite a bit, Hibs are a clean and well run club but if the games rigged whats the point?

---

Ah okay...understood :agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

I dont see any sense in what he says, as in essence he's saying its fine for all of us to screw each other and not pay the taxes we owe, how does that work? :confused:

---

I don't think... and hope he isn't... saying that. He will be coming from the point of view of the lost jobs, the community stuff..etc etc.

Of course, in an independent Scotland, our tax authorities would never have allowed things to get this bad.....:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EuanH78

I mean, I fully expect them to dodge the tax bullet and though it's cynical in the extreme I'm not sure theres anything illegal about it, pretty morally skewed though. I mean about the pheonix companies re-admittance to the SPL, if that comes to pass they really will have got away with everything and thats something so unpalatable to me I dont think I could continue to support Hibs while they remain part of scottish football (not that they have an alternative).
The thought of which saddens me quite a bit, Hibs are a clean and well run club but if the games rigged whats the point?

---

And you just know once the huns have done this, and are out of debt. The next club to do so would be slaughtered, and driven out the game by the same people who sat back and watched the huns run all over the rest of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

And you just know once the huns have done this, and are out of debt. The next club to do so would be slaughtered, and driven out the game by the same people who sat back and watched the huns run all over the rest of us.

---

Yeah but that's most likely to be the diet-huns which would be kinda hysterical in it's own way :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hiberlin

So in other words they've not only ripped off HMRC but also their own fans?

Know what I'd tell them to do if they asked me to pay again for something I'd already paid for.

---

Well - like I said, I don't know anything about it, so I may well be wrong about that........I'm guessing, though, that the administrator gets to choose whether to honour previous committments or not. Does someone who DOES know about these things know the answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

I dont see any sense in what he says, as in essence he's saying its fine for all of us to screw each other and not pay the taxes we owe, how does that work? :confused:

---

The FM was very clear that RFC should pay their tax obligations at whatever level was agreed.:agree:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancienthibby

The FM was very clear that RFC should pay their tax obligations at whatever level was agreed.:agree:

---

... and did he demand that pay the Hertz for Lee Wallace? :greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Can someone remind me how much the Sky money is, and how it is split?

---

+ 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I don't think... and hope he isn't... saying that. He will be coming from the point of view of the lost jobs, the community stuff..etc etc.

Of course, in an independent Scotland, our tax authorities would never have allowed things to get this bad.....:greengrin

---

Aye in an independant Scotland there will be no tax. :greengrin I understand about lost jobs and the community stuff, but this happens every day with firms going bust, and little thought or help goes out to them.

If they are allowed to get out of this mess, then its over for Scottish football imo. Not only do they spend much more than the rest, but they are even allowed to cheat their way too, while the rest of us play by the rules, they just make them up.

This will finish a lot of folk with the Scottish game imo.

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.

---

Great stuff.... ta.

Okay, it's a fair chunk.....more than 10%...of our income.

Sack the Board?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I don't think... and hope he isn't... saying that. He will be coming from the point of view of the lost jobs, the community stuff..etc etc.

Of course, in an independent Scotland, our tax authorities would never have allowed things to get this bad.....:greengrin

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17035992

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, First Minister Alex Salmond admitted he was "very concerned" about the future of Rangers. Mr Salmond has appealed to the club and HM Revenue and Customs to hold talks about how any money owed could be paid back and over what timescale.

---

I think that's fair enough. I mean we seem to be faced with two extreme alternatives at the moment: either Rangers go bust completely, in which case a significant amount of economic activity is lost; or Craig Whyte forms a Rangers newco, in which case all or most of the money owed to HMRC is lost to the public.

A better alternative is where Rangers and HMRC come to some sort of agreement where the amount is paid back within a reasonable period. I don't think that is what Mr Whyte is planning, however. In which case the state (through HMRC) needs to pursue him vigorously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ancienthibby

The FM was very clear that RFC should pay their tax obligations at whatever level was agreed.:agree:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... and did he demand that pay the Hertz for Lee Wallace? :greengrin

---

He pointedly did not!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

I dont see any sense in what he says, as in essence he's saying its fine for all of us to screw each other and not pay the taxes we owe, how does that work? :confused:

---

What Salmond was saying BH, was that Rangers surviving and the debt being paid would be the best result.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

What Salmond was saying BH, was that Rangers surviving and the debt being paid would be the best result.

---

Unless i watched a different interview, his first words were, the most important thing was the survival of Rangers football club. Now that maybe his opinion, but it does carry a lot of clout, as i dont feel that is anywhere near the most important thing in this?

The most important thing in all of this is we all play by the same rules, and clearly Salmond does not think this way, or he'd think the most important thing was we all pay our taxes so the country runs smoothly?

We dont fiddle our way out of what we owe, and leave all the creditors with penny's in the pound?

Saying that he is a politician, most couldn't lye straight in bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

[/B]...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.

---

Very roughly with 19 homes games a season and an average of £20 a ticket, that would equate to us needing an extra 3,157 punters through the turnstiles every home game to make up the loss, and tht ius assuming of course that every single penny of TV revenue drops away. If you assume it halves, for arguments sake, then we would need an extra 1700 or so to come. Neither figure unreasonable for Hibs if they're up there challenging and playing decent football. I concede it is more serious for smaller clubs in the league where this increase wouldnt be feasible.

What is more important though is the reduction in income from punters (myself included) who would seriously be thinking about the value of watching a chronically unfair and laughable competition if they are allowed back relatively unscathed. I'd suggest it would be bigger than this.

I feel sorry for the SPL - damned if they do, damned of they dont, so take the morally correct route and make it work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Part/Time Supporter

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-17035992



I think that's fair enough. I mean we seem to be faced with two extreme alternatives at the moment: either Rangers go bust completely, in which case a significant amount of economic activity is lost; or Craig Whyte forms a Rangers newco, in which case all or most of the money owed to HMRC is lost to the public.

A better alternative is where Rangers and HMRC come to some sort of agreement where the amount is paid back within a reasonable period. I don't think that is what Mr Whyte is planning, however. In which case the state (through HMRC) needs to pursue him vigorously.

---

I am reminded of the words of Noel Coward

Let's be meek to them
And turn the other cheek to them
And try to bring out their latent sense of fun.
Let's give them full air parity
And treat the rats with charity,
But don't let's be beastly to the Hun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwoCarpets

Very roughly with 19 homes games a season and an average of £20 a ticket, that would equate to us needing an extra 3,157 punters through the turnstiles every home game to make up the loss, and tht ius assuming of course that every single penny of TV revenue drops away. If you assume it halves, for arguments sake, then we would need an extra 1700 or so to come. Neither figure unreasonable for Hibs if they're up there challenging and playing decent football. I concede it is more serious for smaller clubs in the league where this increase wouldnt be feasible.

What is more important though is the reduction in income from punters (myself included) who would seriously be thinking about the value of watching a chronically unfair and laughable competition if they are allowed back relatively unscathed. I'd suggest it would be bigger than this.

I feel sorry for the SPL - damned if they do, damned of they dont, so take the morally correct route and make it work.

---

There are many regular attendees that prefer to stay and watch the match in the pub/on-line if it's an early kick-off.
Perhaps the T.V. companies will need to work a bit harder building up interest in the lesser teams rather than only talking about the O.F.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

There are many regular attendees that prefer to stay and watch the match in the pub/on-line if it's an early kick-off

---

:agree: Me, i miss most early kick offs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

:agree: Me, i miss most early kick offs.

---

Lot's of parents have other things to do on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

But in your case it's just the drink taking it's toll.



:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

Lot's of parents have other things to do on a Saturday or Sunday morning.

But in your case it's just the drink taking it's toll.



:greengrin

---

:wink:

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.

---

Excellent stuff - thanks.

So we boot the Huns to Division 3, then organise the other clubs to vote through a more equitable split of revenue with first getting 11.5% (4%+7.5%, down 5.5%), second getting 10.5% (4%+6.5%, down 4.5%) and the others staying the same. If Sky insist on a new deal then this can be arranged on the basis of a 10% cut and only Celtic will lose out on their currently unfair share for finishing first/second every season.

Even if the next deal comes in at 20% less then Hibs are only down £120k. Hardly big money when we will have a much better chance of European football and cup success with Rangers out of the picture, so the increased crowds will offset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eyrie

Excellent stuff - thanks.

So we boot the Huns to Division 3, then organise the other clubs to vote through a more equitable split of revenue with first getting 11.5% (4%+7.5%, down 5.5%), second getting 10.5% (4%+6.5%, down 4.5%) and the others staying the same. If Sky insist on a new deal then this can be arranged on the basis of a 10% cut and only Celtic will lose out on their currently unfair share for finishing first/second every season.

Even if the next deal comes in at 20% less then Hibs are only down £120k. Hardly big money when we will have a much better chance of European football and cup success with Rangers out of the picture, so the increased crowds will offset.

---

Not a chance. It'll be more like a 50% cut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackpoolhibs

Unless i watched a different interview, his first words were, the most important thing was the survival of Rangers football club. Now that maybe his opinion, but it does carry a lot of clout, as i dont feel that is anywhere near the most important thing in this?

The most important thing in all of this is we all play by the same rules, and clearly Salmond does not think this way, or he'd think the most important thing was we all pay our taxes so the country runs smoothly?

We dont fiddle our way out of what we owe, and leave all the creditors with penny's in the pound?

Saying that he is a politician, most couldn't lye straight in bed.

---

:agree:exactly what I thought when some SNP no mark was interviewed this morning. All they were saying was the RFC must survive.

What about the £million they have scammed out of the State ? What about justice and fairness to those who have played the game and paid their taxes - and effectively suffered as a result.

The Huns have had their Fun, now it's payback time. Let the buggers go to wall - if nothing else as an example to others. Otherwise, it appears that crime does pay after all. What other privately owned company in Scotland owing the Revenue £50million could get a government bail out ??? This is all about politicians chasing votes - nothing else. I understand the banks getting bailed out as it affects the hole economy, but football is a game - nothing more - and apparently the source of bigotry, domestic violence, racial and religious hatred. You got to ask the question, WHY the rush to bail out RFC ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever

:agree:exactly what I thought when some SNP no mark was interviewed this morning. All they were saying was the RFC must survive.

What about the £million they have scammed out of the State ? What about justice and fairness to those who have played the game and paid their taxes - and effectively suffered as a result.

The Huns have had their Fun, now it's payback time. Let the buggers go to wall - if nothing else as an example to others. Otherwise, it appears that crime does pay after all. What other privately owned company in Scotland owing the Revenue £50million could get a government bail out ??? This is all about politicians chasing votes - nothing else. I understand the banks getting bailed out as it affects the hole economy, but football is a game - nothing more - and apparently the source of bigotry, domestic violence, racial and religious hatred. You got to ask the question, WHY the rush to bail out RFC ?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EasterRoad4Ever

You got to ask the question, WHY the rush to bail out RFC ?

---

Because the politicians think they will lose votes if they upset Rangers fans.

They need to realise that supporters of other teams and those with no interest in football whatsoever far outnumber the Huns, and this is public money at stake. Would any of these politicians be so keen to let a bank off the hook for using a similar tax evasion scheme?

Hypocrisy of the usual order from our elected representatives.

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

I thought administrators were meant to be wholly independent?

I don't see it as any more than lip service, enough positive noises to placate Rangers fans, no actual offers that would enrage the rest of us.

Would anyone honestly expect Salmond to come out and say 'let the Huns burn for it!' then? It's pretty unlikely, at the end of the day these speeches and soundbites are aimed at the fans / general public, not the club hierarchy.

Even if the Government wanted to bail them out, where the hell would they find the £100million plus needed to settle their debts and get them going again? Holyrood can't borrow, and they wouldn't even consider cutting it from something else important.


Flying pigs will be playing up front for Rangers before they get bailed out by the Government!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marinello59

Eh? Where did I say that? I was talking about our ability to compete in Europe, you know, something ambitious footballing nations want to do.

If we want players of a decent standard in Scotland then we have to pay decent wages. Don't we? Without the TV money the ability of our clubs to do that will be limited.

---

Can you provide proof or evidence of TV money being advantageous to Hibs.

http://i40.tinypic.com/2ueiemv.jpg

:greengrin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killie-hibby

Can you provide proof or evidence of TV money being advantageous to Hibs.

---

lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

lol

---

Why LOL?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentlando

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.

---

I would think that relative to other teams that Hibs would be better placed without a TV deal due to the average size of crowd.

However, that seems a slightly selfish approach to decision making and we should not be looking to gain advantages over others but looking towards making a more competitive league with teams on a more even keel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentlando

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!

---

People seem to be forgetting that all clubs, most worse than us, have debt to service now. Its all well and good saying income will reduce and so costs will have to be cut but the debt that exists now does not disappear and banks want their money back now more so than ever. This is the part where we may be better than others but does it really do us any good if you have clubs like Dundee Utd or Killie whose current debt becomes unserviceable and may have to enter administration themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TQM

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

---

He was allocated 60% of his total entitlement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenPJ

People seem to be forgetting that all clubs, most worse than us, have debt to service now. Its all well and good saying income will reduce and so costs will have to be cut but the debt that exists now does not disappear and banks want their money back now more so than ever. This is the part where we may be better than others but does it really do us any good if you have clubs like Dundee Utd or Killie whose current debt becomes unserviceable and may have to enter administration themselves.

---

True and clubs will have to cut their cloth accordingly. Clubs with bigger debt will have to make bigger cuts, which probably bodes well for Hibs with our significantly reduced debt compared to previous years, but we must remember that our last two January signing sprees and poor performances must have hit us in the pocket too. Therefore the potential demise of Rangers could go two ways. It could force clubs to wake up and smell the coffee, with a club the size of Rangers going busts other clubs may redouble their debt servicing measures. Or it could actually force these clubs further down, with the lack of up to 8,000 away fans per annum paying top whack for tickets when Rangers play. We would inevitably lose out on co-efficients with less success in Europe meaning more early season qualifiers and less chance of getting to group stages/1st rounds etc. The whole thing is a bit guessing game, the only way we'll know for sure is when it actually happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StevieC

I would think that relative to other teams that Hibs would be better placed without a TV deal due to the average size of crowd.

However, that seems a slightly selfish approach to decision making and we should not be looking to gain advantages over others but looking towards making a more competitive league with teams on a more even keel.

---

I'm all for change in the Scottish game, even if it doesn't directly benefit Hibs. However should we be pressing for change if it might disproportionately impact Hibs. As you say, we might have one of the higher average attendances and best quality stadium and training centre. But we also have higher outgoings on maintenance of our infrastructure and a higher wage output than most too. Surely if the Scottish game's finances was to nosedive we'd be quite at risk due to our higher than average expenditure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

He was allocated 60% of his total entitlement.

---

Indeed. Other measures were also in place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greenginger

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.

---

Spot on, I've been advocating this for years, Sportscene relegated to late Sunday nights or whenever there's an inconvenient slot to fill in and really crap coverage at that.
Consider what the BBC spent on last years F1 coverage for what is basically a minority sport (although I do like it) in comparison to football in this country.
The SPL should demand at least 10% of what the BBC spend on the EPL, same with the SFL re the football league coverage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BurghHibby

Spot on, I've been advocating this for years, Sportscene relegated to late Sunday nights or whenever there's an inconvenient slot to fill in and really crap coverage at that.
Consider what the BBC spent on last years F1 coverage for what is basically a minority sport (although I do like it) in comparison to football in this country.
The SPL should demand at least 10% of what the BBC spend on the EPL, same with the SFL re the football league coverage.

---

Or alternatively a collapse of the SKY deal could mean a chance to get the SPL TV channel going. I like the idea of having a channel dedicated to the SPL, therefore we know that every penny spent towards subscribing to the channel is reinvested straight into our game. It could include one or two live matches per week, at peak times and not just slotted in around EPL matches. A comprehensive highlights package on a Saturday night at prime time. A highlight show of all SFL matches, which would bring the lower leagues back in from the cold. During the week it could re-run all the weekends matches, have daily 10-15 minute features on all clubs previous/upcoming matches etc. At least a proposal for this could force the BBC to pay the going rate and not just pick up the old deal for scraps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentlando

I'm all for change in the Scottish game, even if it doesn't directly benefit Hibs. However should we be pressing for change if it might disproportionately impact Hibs.

---

Yes .. if it's for the benefit of the Scottish game.

Whilst there might be short term disadvantages, through time teams would cut their cloth accordingly and at the end of it you should hopefully have an improved football league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

He was allocated 60% of his total entitlement.

---

Excellent - just as well really as otherwise he'd have joined the hoardes of bankers that have left the UK for China and other far flung countries in search of fully deserving remuneration packages :greengrin

How are our shares doing btw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TQM

Excellent - just as well really as otherwise he'd have joined the hoardes of bankers that have left the UK for China and other far flung countries in search of fully deserving remuneration packages :greengrin

How are our shares doing btw?

---

Crap :greengrin

We simply cannot be precise about the impact of losing the TV deal vs a potential increase in gate receipts. Any calculations (see below!) are speculation. However, if we assume that there will still be some TV money - I can't believe that Sky/ESPN would pull the plug in the short-term - then I don't think it would be a doomsday scenario for Hibs.

If our share of the commercial revenue from the SPL including, estimated elsewhere on this thread as totalling about £1.2m normally, drops by half then that is a loss of £600k on a turnover of £6-7m. Roughly speaking, let's say its a 10% reduction, which doesn't sound bad in my view, compared to the devastation in the Football League when ITV Digital went bust.

Of course, we wouldn't need to make up just the £600k in lost revenue, there are the gate receipts from a visit by Rangers 1-2 times every season. Being optimistic with last season and this season as the exceptions to recent history, let's say it's 2 visits. At 3500 fans x £26pp x 2, that's additional lost income of £182k.

Rounding it up, that equals say £800k reduction in revenue. At an average of £20pp - walk-ups AND additional STs - and assuming 19 home games a season, we would need an average 2,100 fans in the home end over and above current figures. This would be countered slightly by the income from the other away team that would replace Rangers twice a season at ER.

In a more competitive and family-friendly league, with match scheduling reverting more to traditional times (though there would still be some scheduling changes for TV), I do not think this is out of the question on a medium-term basis. Commercial revenue streams would recover if the league was more competitive in due course.

If a short-term reduction in income is the price for a fair league without Newco Rangers being "rewarded" for their criminal financial doping of the last 14 years or so, then I think it has got to be worth considering!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smidge

We simply cannot be precise about the impact of losing the TV deal vs a potential increase in gate receipts. Any calculations (see below!) are speculation. However, if we assume that there will still be some TV money - I can't believe that Sky/ESPN would pull the plug in the short-term - then I don't think it would be a doomsday scenario for Hibs.

If our share of the commercial revenue from the SPL including, estimated elsewhere on this thread as totalling about £1.2m normally, drops by half then that is a loss of £600k on a turnover of £6-7m. Roughly speaking, let's say its a 10% reduction, which doesn't sound bad in my view, compared to the devastation in the Football League when ITV Digital went bust.

Of course, we wouldn't need to make up just the £600k in lost revenue, there are the gate receipts from a visit by Rangers 1-2 times every season. Being optimistic with last season and this season as the exceptions to recent history, let's say it's 2 visits. At 3500 fans x £26pp x 2, that's additional lost income of £182k.

Rounding it up, that equals say £800k reduction in revenue. At an average of £20pp - walk-ups AND additional STs - and assuming 19 home games a season, we would need an average 2,100 fans in the home end over and above current figures. This would be countered slightly by the income from the other away team that would replace Rangers twice a season at ER.

In a more competitive and family-friendly league, with match scheduling reverting more to traditional times (though there would still be some scheduling changes for TV), I do not think this is out of the question on a medium-term basis. Commercial revenue streams would recover if the league was more competitive in due course.

If a short-term reduction in income is the price for a fair league without Newco Rangers being "rewarded" for their criminal financial doping of the last 14 years or so, then I think it has got to be worth considering!

---

We are happy to lose revenue when we are wanting to go down the line of league reconstruction to only playing each other twice a season losing 4 old firm games a season. League reconstruction to only playing twice would lose old firm games and tv revenue as SKY would re negotiate. What is the point of it all if we keep the rich, rich and winning everything, instead of losing a bit of income and making the league more competative for european places etc. The fans constantly moan about lunch time kick offs and the bigots, we may have the chance to sort that out but some people still say we cant cope without them. Money has fallen out of scottish football before and its survived.

No tv coverage would probably be a good thing as far as Sparky's concerned. :greengrin

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.

---

You certainly are not. I have stopped going to games that are live on T.V. I cannot justify paying £28 for a game I can watch for free in the house, (or have already paid for with my T.V. deal anyway). I know this does not help Hibs finances but it certainly helps mine. I realise that the reason these games are priced higher is because the away support (celtc, derhun, Yams) will generally fill their end anyway and Hibs score out of that, but no way am I paying that price.
I have said for long enough now that we if sold home games in batches of 2 or 3 at a time and they were all priced the same, e.g. 2 cat B and one cat A game for £22 each, it would help the cause but there are several factors to why Cat A games are no longer sell outs, Price, kick-off times and probably more importantly live T.V. coverage.
The T.V. deal is crap and even if we lost the ESPN/SKY deal, I'm sure BBC or STV would step in with a lesser deal to compensate slightly, it would not be a total loss.

Seen on Sky Sports News that the administrators are holding a press conference at 3.30pm. Hopefully they come out with a massive list of playing redundancies leaving them with a youth team. I'm not getting excited at players losing employment, but rather Rangers losing their best players. Hopefully this will happen and the Rangers fans start to see what the next few years has in store for them.

When is Naismith out of contract? Possibly they might be forced into getting rid of him especially with his injury?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stokesmessiah

I think this is the SPL TV deal that was mooted previously and not the existing Sky deal.

For the record i am horrified at the scare mongering approach we seem to be getting from the media so far. I would quite like (maybe i have missed it somewhere) if one of them came out and said what a lot of non-Rangers fans are thinking which is....Stuff them, they cheated and now they can fall on their own sword.

---

I've go to agree with this. Hopefully when they have wiped away all the tears someone will eventually come out and tell it like it this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andy74

Crap :greengrin

---

PETRIE!!! :grr:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pentlando

Seen on Sky Sports News that the administrators are holding a press conference at 3.30pm. Hopefully they come out with a massive list of playing redundancies leaving them with a youth team. I'm not getting excited at players losing employment, but rather Rangers losing their best players. Hopefully this will happen and the Rangers fans start to see what the next few years has in store for them.

---

There will be no player redundancies this week!:agree:

The Huns are expecting a full house on Saturday at Ipox - the administrators would themselves be liquidated if they made any player redundant ahead of the game!:devil:

There's not enough polis in the entire country that could cope with the anger of 45,000 'fans' in a confined space.

On the other hand, bet you they have hundreds of stewards with collection pails and take in a cool million on the day??:greengrin

Just read this bit on the BBC News website:

Scottish Labour said the threat to one of Scottish football's oldest institutions was a serious concern.
In a letter to Treasury minister David Gauke, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Margaret Curran said it was correct that the tax was collected.
But she added: "I would however ask that you, as the minister responsible, ensure that this is done in a reasonable way, focused on the best outcome for the club and taxpayer."

Why should any pressure be applied by Politicians on the HMRC to help Rangers out is beyond me. If you or I didnt pay our taxes we would not recieve any special treatment from HMRC - why should Rangers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Brazil

Just read this bit on the BBC News website:

Scottish Labour said the threat to one of Scottish football's oldest institutions was a serious concern.
In a letter to Treasury minister David Gauke, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Margaret Curran said it was correct that the tax was collected.
But she added: "I would however ask that you, as the minister responsible, ensure that this is done in a reasonable way, focused on the best outcome for the club and taxpayer."

Why should any pressure be applied by Politicians on the HMRC to help Rangers out is beyond me. If you or I didnt pay our taxes we would not recieve any special treatment from HMRC - why should Rangers.

---

I think you are mis-reading it. She says...the best outcome for the club and taxpayer. That doesn't seem to be putting pressure on to help RFC.

In the words of nelson from the simpsons...

AHAAA

:na na

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Brazil

Just read this bit on the BBC News website:

Scottish Labour said the threat to one of Scottish football's oldest institutions was a serious concern.
In a letter to Treasury minister David Gauke, Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland Margaret Curran said it was correct that the tax was collected.
But she added: "I would however ask that you, as the minister responsible, ensure that this is done in a reasonable way, focused on the best outcome for the club and taxpayer."

Why should any pressure be applied by Politicians on the HMRC to help Rangers out is beyond me. If you or I didnt pay our taxes we would not recieve any special treatment from HMRC - why should Rangers.

---

Thats what is pissing me off about this. Poor Rangers have this big bill that they cant afford, Hardly anyone mentioning that they have been cheating the country out of millions of pounds each year. If this were any other club apart from celtic no one would even consider helping them. It has brought to light the easy ride the OF get in Scotland

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gatecrasher

Thats what is pissing me off about this. Poor Rangers have this big bill that they cant afford, Hardly anyone mentioning that they have been cheating the country out of millions of pounds each year. If this were any other club apart from celtic no one would even consider helping them. It has brought to light the easy ride the OF get in Scotland

---

:agree:

However, know this. In this life, you can be guaranteed but two things if you live in this country.
No 1 - you will eventually die.
No 2 - you will pay taxes until you die, period.

You cannot cheat either.

Also know this; cheating the tax man is worse to the powers that be than say, beating the **** out some random in the street.

The huns will get theirs. So will the yams. The common denominator, ironically. HMRC :greengrin

"God pay the Queen" :greengrin
"Borrow Borrow" :greengrin etc etc

ENDOF

It would be great for Scottish Fitba if they were pumped oot the league and had to start at the bottom of 3, it would mean sellik would find it harder to attract good players,the fans wouldnae turn up as they will get fed up with not having competition, meaning less money and dragging them down aswell, HAPPY DAYS. A more even playing field for all.
SPHell will be rid of 1 set of bigots while the other set will begin to dwindle,what a GREAT CHANCE FOR SCOTTISH FITBA to start over and demand changes and a bigger slice of whatever pot of tv/sponsor money (which will obviously be way less than now if the buns weere to leave) is on offer.
SPL GRAB YIR CHANCE AND TELL THE OF WHERE TAE GO.
OH AYE..stolen from above ditto....
..in lieu of any new news and on account of decades of religious sectarian biggotry being the sole contribution of glasgarangersfcpuredeadbrilliantman, I'd just like to reiterate the following:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ya hun radges and ....

GIRFUY and all yer apologists.



ENDOF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I think you are mis-reading it. She says...the best outcome for the club and taxpayer. That doesn't seem to be putting pressure on to help RFC.

---

Alex Salmond said yesterday that the most important thing was for Rangers to survive. Surely, abiding by the law and paying your taxes is far more important.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BurghHibby

Spot on, I've been advocating this for years, Sportscene relegated to late Sunday nights or whenever there's an inconvenient slot to fill in and really crap coverage at that.
Consider what the BBC spent on last years F1 coverage for what is basically a minority sport (although I do like it) in comparison to football in this country.
The SPL should demand at least 10% of what the BBC spend on the EPL, same with the SFL re the football league coverage.

---

The problem is that BBC could reply, with some justification, that many up here prefer to watch Premiership Football from down South.

Rangers players just been told jobs are safe and DC looks likes he's safe as well, so it looks like a back room staff kull.

Season ticket holders contract looks to be terminated sometime today to generate more cash at home games.

Before anyone asks source.........twitter is giving updates on discussions.

Press conference 15.30 today

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hibiedude

Rangers players just been told jobs are safe and DC looks likes he's safe as well, so it looks like a back room staff kull.

Season ticket holders contract looks to be terminated sometime today to generate more cash at home games.

Before anyone asks source.........twitter is giving updates on discussions.

Press conference 15.30 today

---

They surely can't be allowed to escape a tax bill when they are getting away with carrying on as normal paying players that they can no longer afford?

Listen tae auld reekin' bacon chops at 1.15 onwards .. what a tool!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17052096