The Real PapaBear
-
Posts
2,366 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by The Real PapaBear
-
You raise four fair points here, which I would answer thus; 1. it would take two reasonable people somewhere between 10 and 12 minutes to work out what would be an equitable split of gate receipts. Me? I'd go for 60/40. 2. If we are a loss making enterprise whilst having an income 6 times the league average, then that's a systemic failure; i.e it doesn't matter what our income was, we'd still be loss making. it is that systemic failure which needs to be addressed, not the amounts being lost. 3. The redundancy notices handed out at Ibrox would accompany the job offers being made at Hamilton, Livingston, Hibs, Falkirk and Motherwell whose businesses would be expanding. 4. It's almost certain that we'd struggle to achieve regular CL qualification during the first years of gate sharing. But how is that different from recent history when we failed as often as we succeeded? The point is that the increased funds to smaller sides allows them to develop more talent so the quality of the Scottish game, over time, would result in a better Rangers side and Scottish teams achieving a higher co-efficient which would mean that we would be entered into the CL groups or Q Round 3. The way it used to be when teams like Aberdeen, Dundee Ud etc used to be able to hammer Borussia Moenchengladbach or Bayern Munich - when we had gate sharing.
-
yes, very good. Now take your tongue out of your cheek and look up "Reductio ad absurdum"
-
except England, Germany, France, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Russia, Poland, Portugal etc etc
-
Well, we know for sure that the present solution ain't working, so continuing to do what we're doing isn't an option. Some back of the fag packet maths: Say, the OF have an attendance of 40k at £20 a head = £800,000 gate receipts per game x 36 = £29m gate receipts for the OF per season the league average is 7k at £20 = £140,000 x 36 =£5m As it currently stands, we earn 6 times as much as the average every season With gate sharing, even at the maximum split of 50% each we would have an income of £15m and they would have a £5.1m income. I don't know if I'd describe having our advantage reduced to only three times theirs instead of 6 as being neutered. Also, if they have more income, they can invest in youth development which results in better players for us to buy, better competition, more interest in the league and general all round goodness. And the final point is that it's just natural justice to split the gate fairly - perhaps not 50-50, given the size of the overheads we have at Ibrox compared to Fir Park, say, but certainly more equitably. You can't have a game of football without two teams and if two teams turn up to play both should be treated equally. Or is that too utopian?
-
Ahmad would though, mate. He's suing us so that he can give us back the money he wins from us by suing us. Forget 45k shares, Imran's going to give us £3.4m. Quality bloke.
-
I think we're dealing with two different strands here. One is the small businessman or woman, the guys who delivered the printing, fixed the cars and repaired the computers. These guys did work or delivered goods and services to Rangers in good faith; These guys should be compensated in full, with interest. Then we have the non payment of PAYE and National Insurance by Craig Whyte - the debt that drove us into Administration, if you like. You could make a valid argument that HMRC allowed this debt to build up far too long, and so helped ensure that we had no means of paying off such a sum when the time came to do so. The conspiratorialists among us <cough>Rangersrab</cough>would have you believe this was part of an orchestrated plan by Tims at HMRC and HBOS to ensure our demise - and he may well be right, who knows? In any event, HMRC were instrumental in our downfall and in the liquidation of the company that ran Rangers, due to the way in which they handled the EBT case - and so you could make a case of telling them to gtf, even though there's no dispute that the company that ran Rangers owed the payment of NI and PAYE. There's no such case to be made, however, for innocent civilians running small businesses caught up in this. These guys should all be fairly compensated by the current owners of Rangers. I'm not sure the Costa Concordia analogy works, though. The Captain was employed by the company; the company was therefore responsible for the actions of its employee. Whyte wasn't employed by Rangers and so Rangers isn't legally responsible for his actions - however, I suggest we are morally responsible to compensate those who suffered in their dealings with us. After all, we are the same club and our name is our most valuable asset.
-
No, I wouldn't. There's a world of difference between the butcher, baker and candlestick maker who had long term relationships with Rangers and a huge organisation which got into bed with Whyte even though they had enough disquiet about him to demand a personal guarantee. Ticketus may have got their fingers burned because they didn't do their homework properly. The same is not true of the local taxi firm or the guy who delivers the milk.
-
Quite right. We are the same club, and it doesn't matter if it's under different ownership. The club, albeit whilst being run by a crook, racked up debts to lots of innocent businesses and the club should pay those debts*, irrespective of who the new owners may be. It's not legally required for us to do so; but it is morally. * Except to HMRC; they can go fuck themselves.
-
It's a fair point, well made, sir - (although I'd debate whether the BBC remarks about Spence's language could be called 'disparaging' - more a mild rebuke, if you ask me) but I would suggest that Chris is right to pursue this. We have to remember that Spence is not alone at the BBC; there are three or four others, all of whom seem to have unfettered access to a microphone, who are as bad as, if not worse than, Spence when it comes to fostering and propagating the lie that Rangers died. Yes, you're right about picking your battles carefullu; yes, you're right about Spence probably being told to watch what he says, at least for a wee while, but what happens when his place is taken by Cosgrove or Spiers or McGlaughlin who come up in rotation to take a swing at us like the New York Yankees in a blowout inning? The point about not extending the complaint beyond the actual instant is a good one - the BBC is institutionally biased and it is a nest of lying toads, but there's no point in trying to get them to admit that. Far better to focus on this one point; that Spence used a diffusion technique to attribute his own views to 'others' by claiming "some people" say we're dead - a technique as dishonest as it is transparent. If the official BBC position turns out to be the we are the same club as we always were, then any future defense of "but that's what some people say" can be rendered meaningless. Otherwise you could have commentators on the Fasnet Boat Race saying that "the Dutch crew are favourites this year, but they might go hurtling into space because some people say the Earth is flat" We have to nail this fabrication once and for all at some point and it is battle that should have been fought months ago; but it wasn't so now's as good a time as any, and if Chris and others have the stamina and time for it, good on them. But, one way or the other, let's put this one to bed. Either the BBC officially claims we died or it officially says we did not. And if it officially says we did not then any employee who continues to promote this falsehood has to consider their position - or have their position considered for them.
-
Some people will tell you that Jim Spence is a cowardly slimeball, who doesn't have the guts to stand up and come out with his opinion clearly, preferring to hide behind insinuation, half-truths and omissions. Some people will tell you that the BBC long ago lost any credibility it once had and that the people who work there are second-raters to a man, because if they were worth a damn they wouldn't be working where they are. Some people will tell you that the BBC are little more than state-funded liars; liars led by donkeys. Not my opinion, you understand, oh deary me, no, no, no - it's just what some people will tell you.
-
Little did a job for us last season for sure, but at no time did he set the heather on fire. I'd have him third behind Clark and Daly and let all three know, they're one game away from sitting on the bench or in the stand. Templeton, too is one who has to show more than the occasional showpiece goal and showboating against 3rd division players. Also, not being injured 48 weeks a year would help. Apart from that, things are looking positive for the first time in a long time.
-
The GN downtime of a couple of weeks ago forced me, and probably one or two others, to go elsewhere temporarily for our daily 'fix' of things Rangers. I shall simply quote Joni: " Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got til its gone" This is a special place and we should never forget it. And in that spirit, apologies to StB, D'Artagnan, Rangerrab, superCooper and any others to whom I was disrespectful. I will try harder in future to keep a less sarcastic and belligerent tongue in my head.
-
A fair enough article, which overlooks only one thing: Motherwell and Hearts are essentially community clubs. Rangers is (or will be again) a major European operation. At the level we (will) operate at, a board of Brickies & Brain Surgeons isn't any good to us.
-
Rangers - A Club More Disliked Than Any In Britain
The Real PapaBear replied to ian1964's topic in Rangers Chat
It was a biggish deal, but nothing on the scale of what it would be today. Back in the late 80s early 90s, we considered ourselves to be as big as anyone and afraid of no-one in football terms. At the time Rangers were probably one of the top 3 biggest clubs in the UK, and certainly one of the top 5; back then we used to think of Man Utd, Arsenal, Liverpool, Rangers and our detergent avoiding friends from the East End as being the big 5, with Spurs and Everton a step behind, then the likes of Leeds, Villa Newcastle etc. -
McCoist keen to bring Kenny Miller back to Ibrox
The Real PapaBear replied to DUDE's topic in Rangers Chat
We don't have anyone with the experience of Miller, with the possible exception of Jig. KM was/is the consummate professional. He knows how to behave on and off the field, he's top quality as a player and always gives 100%. If McCoist is signing him only to score goals, that would be a mistake. But if he's signing him to be a leader/teacher/coach and back up striker, I think this would be money very well spent. -
Is there a "drooling" emoticon? Man, did we ever play better football than under DA in his second season?
-
That supposes that the Mcoll group are naive enough to let themselves get played, which I don't believe for a second. I read it more like McColl and Co allowing the opposition to withdraw with some face and little blood shed.
-
For the Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative Version)
The Real PapaBear replied to a topic in Rangers Chat
Dr Ardbeg Corryvreckan lends a particularly sympathetic ear -
For the Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative Version)
The Real PapaBear replied to a topic in Rangers Chat
Agreed. The club should pick one battle at a time; ban one news outlet at a time and use this to encourage the others to behave. If you have Clyde, BBC and Record all outside the tent at the same time, it's going to be very wet inside. -
For the Avoidance of Doubt (Alternative Version)
The Real PapaBear replied to a topic in Rangers Chat
women can multi-task; we can't. And don't be giving me no nonsense about, "aye, but I can change a spark plug and listen tae the fitba at the same time" While you're doing that, she's preparing lunch, tidying up the mess you left the last time you were in the house, talking to your sister on the phone and arranging your mother's birthday party, keeping an eye on a cake in the oven, working out the shopping bills and still finding time to bear a grudge because you said her hair was 'wavy'. *That* my friend is multi-tasking. What? fuck off; this is cheaper than paying for therapy! -
dramatic? really? Rather than telling me to calm down, you should perhaps give a bit more thought to your argument. let's start with "within reason". Who decides what is "within reason"? Is a £5,000 bet within reason? if so, what's the rational? £5000 would represent a year's disposable income to me. If I bet that amount on a football game, is that reasonable? The same amount of money would represent a week's disposable income for some or half a day's disposable income for others. So what's reasonable and who decides? Let's now move on to "he is not paying off an opposition player". How do you know who he is paying off? Then "where is the cheating". Let's say he bets on his team to win by between two and three goals. We're winning 3-1. He puts his foot on the ball, slows the game down and does his best to make sure we don't score another one, let alone two goals. Is that cheating? What happens when I, as a punter, bet on Rangers to win 5-1, but our central midfielder has bet the ranch on a scoreline of 3-1. I have no chance of getting my 5-1. Is that cheating? The obvious and indisputable fact is that if you are involved in a game, the outcome of which you can manipulate or influence, and you have a financial incentive to manipulate that game to any extent, then that game becomes corrupted and unfair. Gambling is the biggest and most serious cancer in any sport - and it will destroy any sport in which it gains a foothold. It must be completely eradicated at the first whiff of it, otherwise we lose faith in the sport and then we lose interest and then it dies. If you don't already know the story, have a look at the 1919 Chicago Whitesox - a scandal that almost killed Major League baseball. Then look at what happened to Pete Rose at the end of last century.
-
are you out of your f-ing mind? "hardly a big deal"??? betting on football games where you may possibly know one or more of the participants and may therefore be directly or indirectly involved or give rise to the perception of involvement is a sackable offense. Betting on games in which you yourself are involved can mean only one thing; banned sine die from football. Google 'Pete Rose'
-
Tom English - Need For Transparency
The Real PapaBear replied to chilledbear's topic in Rangers Chat
He makes a number of good points, chief among them, why is McCoist signing a reserve keeper that we don't need at a minimum cost of £100k per annum? Even if Ally he wants to farm out our reserve keeper to get playing time elsewhere, any second reserve keeper that we already have should be better than anybody playing in whatever the fuck our league is called this year. -
exactly my point. As chairman, he would have had to be neutral. After resigning, he can speak openly.
-
I have a gut feeling that this thing has hours, or a day or so at most, to go before it is resolved. Smith's role was as a 'caretaker' chairman who was there as a symbolic figure. Now, his stepping aside is an acknowledgement that he can no longer perform any meaningful function as chairman, which is in itself an indication that the real fight is about to take place and as chairman he would have to be neutral. If I was a betting man, I'd lay a hefty wager of Green being ousted for good and a 'Rangers minded' board being in place sooner rather than later.