Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

The end of Rangers?



Gritt23

New member
Jul 7, 2003
14,902
Meopham, Kent.
I think most of them are more bothered about directing their ire towards Murray and Whyte than feeling ashamed on behalf of their club.

And as for the 75% vote, it seemed to me from reading followfollow.com (before I was banned for expressing an opinon that div 1 should not even be an option - I kid you not) that they are more concerned that Scottish football is seen to cut off its nose to spite its face than any sense of what is right and proper. i.e. they'd rather see the other SPL clubs suffer a massive loss of income and start at the bottom than accept being relegated by just one division and seeing finances relatively unaffected. I'm sure there are plenty of principled people among that 75%, however - followfollow is a crap, bigotted site IMO.

Can't argue with the bigoted bit, as we've seen that from both sides of Glasgow for as long as I've followed football, but I am still encouraged by the scale of "support" for Div 3 football. Even "without sanctions" only 20% voted in favour of Div 1. I just thought that was a pleasant change from the likes of Ken Bates and Leeds supporters who seemed to think that any sort of penalty was some sort of witch hunt.
 




Silverhatch

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2009
4,696
Preston Park
Sky could honour the contract and televise every Rangers game from Div 3 upwards. Still get massive (relatively) viewing figures especially if the Rangers faithful honour their threat not to travel away.
 


cjd

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2006
6,311
La Rochelle
I think most of them are more bothered about directing their ire towards Murray and Whyte than feeling ashamed on behalf of their club.

And as for the 75% vote, it seemed to me from reading followfollow.com (before I was banned for expressing an opinon that div 1 should not even be an option - I kid you not) that they are more concerned that Scottish football is seen to cut off its nose to spite its face than any sense of what is right and proper. i.e. they'd rather see the other SPL clubs suffer a massive loss of income and start at the bottom than accept being relegated by just one division and seeing finances relatively unaffected. I'm sure there are plenty of principled people among that 75%, however - followfollow is a crap, bigotted site IMO.


Agree with the above.

The venom they have for all other football teams in Scotland is quite frightening. I think Scottish football is in trouble financially......and the threat of future violence towards opposing football supporters is a very big one.

The response from Rangers fans when the 'apology' from the newco rangers chairman was given to the SPL, was quite astonishing.
 


The Fifth Column

Lazy mug
Nov 30, 2010
4,132
Hangleton
It may already have been mentioned in this and other threads but I wonder if any of the Celtic players might now be thinking of transferring elsewhere in the absence of the Old Firm and all the likely negative effects of this whole saga?
 


Gritt23

New member
Jul 7, 2003
14,902
Meopham, Kent.
It may already have been mentioned in this and other threads but I wonder if any of the Celtic players might now be thinking of transferring elsewhere in the absence of the Old Firm and all the likely negative effects of this whole saga?

I think that could very well happen, and in light of how easily Celtic must be expecting to win the League, they may very well look to accept bids, knowing that either way they should win the League at a canter, and either way they will not be good enough to qualify for the Group Stages of the Champions League.

It only takes Celtic to get that a bit wrong, and for someone to break out of the pack, and you never know, Sky could have an interesting SPL on their hands.
 




mejonaNO12 aka riskit

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2003
21,927
England
It's amazing just how much this is screwing up other teams. I believe it was St Mirren who claimed on Five Live that, although they won't be the first, they are adament that Rangers dropping to the 3rd division (where a newco should begin) will put them into administration by Christmas. From what I remember them saying, if Rangers were put into the first division a lot of SPL teams could budget on the assumption that they would be back in the SPL in one season.

3 seasons minimum is too long for them financially.
 


Box of Frogs

Zamoras Left Boot
Oct 8, 2003
4,751
Right here, right now
Maybe Sky could do the right thing and honour the contracts that would be given if Ranges were in the SPL?

I would imagine that the contract was based on there being Rangers and Celtic in the SPL - therefore if one of them are not, the contract gets torn up!
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,953
Surrey
It's amazing just how much this is screwing up other teams. I believe it was St Mirren who claimed on Five Live that, although they won't be the first, they are adament that Rangers dropping to the 3rd division (where a newco should begin) will put them into administration by Christmas. From what I remember them saying, if Rangers were put into the first division a lot of SPL teams could budget on the assumption that they would be back in the SPL in one season.

3 seasons minimum is too long for them financially.
If St Mirren (or any other club) have been running themselves so badly that three seasons without Rangers in the top flight is likely to bankrupt them, then I'd suggest they deserve to be in administration. What a shit way of running a club.
 




Herne Hill Seagull

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2003
2,985
Galicia
I would imagine that the contract was based on there being Rangers and Celtic in the SPL - therefore if one of them are not, the contract gets torn up!

Surely no FA in their right mind would allow such a clause, however desperate for the money they were? You couldn't possibly leave yourself open to the suggestion that the make-up (in terms of the teams within it) of your top flight was in any way influenced by the TV companies, it would suggest that the very integrity of the sport was for sale.

(Perhaps it is, these days...)
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,953
Surrey
I would imagine that the contract was based on there being Rangers and Celtic in the SPL - therefore if one of them are not, the contract gets torn up!
Possibly true. You have to say, the diehard supporters of literally every other club in Scotland must be wondering this morning what the point is of supporting their own clubs. Contracts have been agreed that literally enshrine their positions within the league as nothing more than cannon fodder for the old firm. It's a sad state of affairs, and Scottish football is turning into a corrupt disgrace.
 


mejonaNO12 aka riskit

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2003
21,927
England
If St Mirren (or any other club) have been running themselves so badly that three seasons without Rangers in the top flight is likely to bankrupt them, then I'd suggest they deserve to be in administration. What a shit way of running a club.

I think that's slightly unfair. You obviously budget based on your income. The majority of their income is from TV. The TV deal is reliant on Rangers.

When ITV digital collapsed it caused havoc for many clubs. Was that bad management for them?
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,953
Surrey
Surely no FA in their right mind would allow such a clause, however desperate for the money they were? You couldn't possibly leave yourself open to the suggestion that the make-up (in terms of the teams within it) of your top flight was in any way influenced by the TV companies, it would suggest that the very integrity of the sport was for sale.

(Perhaps it is, these days...)

Details:
SPL's £80m TV deal with Sky and ESPN kicks expansion into touch | Football | The Guardian

Rangers in crisis: Sky TV threaten to tear up TV deal if Ibrox club is demoted to Division Three - The Daily Record


"SKY TV are poised to tear up their £110million deal to screen Scottish football if Rangers are thrown into the Third Division.

The broadcasting giants agreed their five-year deal with the SPL on the basis of four money-spinning Old Firm clashes a year."


So yes, that TV deal was indeed agreed.
 


Herne Hill Seagull

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2003
2,985
Galicia
Jesus Christ. You can't get away from the feeling that there are plenty up there who are reaping what they've sewn. Regrettably, other clubs who've tried to do the right thing financially are going to be stung as well.
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,953
Surrey
I think that's slightly unfair. You obviously budget based on your income. The majority of their income is from TV. The TV deal is reliant on Rangers.

When ITV digital collapsed it caused havoc for many clubs. Was that bad management for them?
You're probably right, as it was the SPL as a body who negotiated this TV deal. But nevertheless, my real point is that I'm not sure I believe St Mirren would face administration if the renogotiation of the TV contract was the only problem. And would Sky really walk away entirely from that deal? I'm not convinced.
 




beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
36,025
...I believe it was St Mirren who claimed on Five Live that, although they won't be the first, they are adament that Rangers dropping to the 3rd division (where a newco should begin) will put them into administration by Christmas.

i read the same this morning, only September. It certainly shows that the situation is complicated.

on the supposed Rangers travelling support, i recall looking up the last few away games... either they dont take any support with them or the locals dont go to games as the attendances would shame L2 clubs.
 


Dessie

New member
Jun 17, 2010
87
Sheffield
You're probably right, as it was the SPL as a body who negotiated this TV deal. But nevertheless, my real point is that I'm not sure I believe St Mirren would face administration if the renogotiation of the TV contract was the only problem. And would Sky really walk away entirely from that deal? I'm not convinced.

I don't think they would - it'd be commercial suicide. They receive far more in subscriptions from North of the border than they pay out as it stands. Any organised boycott from Scottish viewers (over 0.5m of them) would hit Uncle Rupert where it hurts most. If Sky's renegotiation of the deal is too punitive, I'd tell them where to stick it and launch SPL TV.
 
Last edited:




CHAPPERS

DISCO SPENG
Jul 5, 2003
45,098
Details:
SPL's £80m TV deal with Sky and ESPN kicks expansion into touch | Football | The Guardian

Rangers in crisis: Sky TV threaten to tear up TV deal if Ibrox club is demoted to Division Three - The Daily Record


"SKY TV are poised to tear up their £110million deal to screen Scottish football if Rangers are thrown into the Third Division.

The broadcasting giants agreed their five-year deal with the SPL on the basis of four money-spinning Old Firm clashes a year."


So yes, that TV deal was indeed agreed.

Incredible isn't it. You only have to look at this situation and the situation in the Spanish league (Barca and Real each recieve 100m Euros more per season for TV rights than the next highest (Athletico) and then it diminishes further as you go down the Primera Liga) to see how far the game has gone in selling it's soul.
 




Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
53,201
Goldstone
I have a slight problem with this being referred to as being "demoted." The old club, the iold company has gone, it's heading into liquidation. End.

The debate is where this new company that has been created can start in the pyramid. Do they start at the bottom, or are they allowed some special treatment due to the level of support and tv money that will presumably come with them. The debate is really how much we allow money to bend the rules, and morals of teh game.
Agreed.

Maybe Sky could do the right thing and honour the contracts that would be given if Ranges were in the SPL?
Agreed (although it's not about honouring the contract, but the spirit of it etc)

Possibly true. You have to say, the diehard supporters of literally every other club in Scotland must be wondering this morning what the point is of supporting their own clubs. Contracts have been agreed that literally enshrine their positions within the league as nothing more than cannon fodder for the old firm. It's a sad state of affairs, and Scottish football is turning into a corrupt disgrace.
Agreed.

"SKY TV are poised to tear up their £110million deal to screen Scottish football if Rangers are thrown into the Third Division.

The broadcasting giants agreed their five-year deal with the SPL on the basis of four money-spinning Old Firm clashes a year."


So yes, that TV deal was indeed agreed.
What are the
Well that depends on the wording of the contract. For example, could they not invent games for the old firm to play - the Glasgow cup?

PS - I'm just looking at old league tables. SPL = 12 teams, 38 games each. How does that work?
 


Gullys Cats

Sausage by the sea!!!
Nov 27, 2010
3,112
NSC
rangers and Celtic killed the spl years ago and glory hunting
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here