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.This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
View Poll Results: What is your attitude to a new "Rangers" entering at Div1?
- Voters
- 1016. You may not vote on this poll
-
Opposed - and will walk away from Scottish professional football
537 52.85% -
Opposed - but will continue to support the game.
454 44.69% -
In favour.
25 2.46%
Results 811 to 840 of 45185
-
15-02-2012 06:03 PM #811
-
15-02-2012 06:04 PM #812This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 06:04 PM #813
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Posts
- 3,276
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 06:04 PM #814
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Posts
- 2,896
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 06:06 PM #815This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 06:06 PM #816This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
+ 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.
-
15-02-2012 06:08 PM #817This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Aye in an independant Scotland there will be no tax.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.
-
15-02-2012 06:08 PM #818This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Okay, it's a fair chunk.....more than 10%...of our income.
Sack the Board?
-
15-02-2012 06:08 PM #819This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show 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.
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.
-
15-02-2012 06:10 PM #820
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 06:10 PM #821
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Posts
- 2,896
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 06:12 PM #822This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 06:19 PM #823This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
15-02-2012 06:31 PM #824This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
15-02-2012 06:38 PM #825This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
15-02-2012 06:42 PM #826This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
15-02-2012 06:44 PM #827This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Me, i miss most early kick offs.
-
15-02-2012 07:05 PM #828This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
-
15-02-2012 07:54 PM #830This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
15-02-2012 07:57 PM #831This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 08:10 PM #832
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Posts
- 3,860
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quoteexactly 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 ?
-
15-02-2012 08:11 PM #833This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
-
15-02-2012 08:14 PM #834This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
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.
-
15-02-2012 08:30 PM #835
It's worrying that someone at Duff & Phelps assisted Whyte with the takeover of Rangers.
I thought administrators were meant to be wholly independent?
-
15-02-2012 08:30 PM #836
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Posts
- 6,458
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!
-
15-02-2012 08:43 PM #837
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Kilmarnock
- Age
- 80
- Posts
- 697
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Can you provide proof or evidence of TV money being advantageous to Hibs.
-
-
-
15-02-2012 08:52 PM #840
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Kilmarnock
- Age
- 80
- Posts
- 697
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Log in to remove the advert |
Bookmarks