calscot

Sounds like a cost cutting exercise.

I can't see how spreading the TV money down more is "fairer". Maybe nicer, kinder, more benevolent or philanthropic but I just can't see, fairer. The TV pay to show the top clubs and the fans pay the TV company to watch those top games. What has a bottom half third division club got to do with this equation? Also I'm coming to the conclusion that football just doesn't understand money or economics from top to bottom - except for the pyramid system of making players richer. They don't seem to understand that if you give everyone more money, all that happens is that you pay more for the same players. What is the difference with just cutting your cloth accordingly, especially when you're middling teams in lower leagues? The only time that more money really helps is in infrastructure and non wage running costs. If you can't meet those bills then you're in trouble but after that it's just the same clubs competing for the same standard of player but with more money in their pockets to go to the auction with.

It seems to me if you want change you need to do it one agenda item at a time rather than wrap everything up in a package that contains massive chunks of objectionable stuff. Before you can change the league format surely you need to first put a vote to having one league body and then let THAT body propose, second and vote on the league structure? If nothing else you have one poll rather than two - especially as the current one was doomed to failure at the SFL vote in any case. Although I think that could have been the excuse they needed to start the SPL2 and remain in full control.

That's funny. Even funnier that those two actually wanted the 9-3 vote but perhaps they are starting to recognise the Celtic cabal...

At first glance, no, but it would take away the momentum of interest in our journey and lead to lower crowds, less interest in our games and therefore less income as well as news exposure for us.

I take it the SFL can now renegotiate their own TV rights independently of the SPL? We'll still not get a fair share but it should be much better than before and the SPL should have to renegotiate their own deal without us. If that happens I'd expect both leagues to get an equal deal - although probably both derisory. The SFL would still be receiving more money than before and still have the bonus of Rangers visiting Division 2 grounds as well as the Ramsden Cup fixtures. The smaller clubs should be in a better state than before Rangers' demotion. However the opposite will be in store for the SPL with clubs losing more TV money and still no Rangers sell outs while the lopsided nature of a now very unsuitable league format will mean that instead of being guaranteed three OF games at home with four clubs getting four, at least three of them will only be given just one Celtic match while others get two. The anomalies after the split will most like be greater due to the seeding being more difficult. It's a bit of a disaster for them and I'll happily watch them go under one by one.

I think Celtic are shitting themselves that we'll come back stronger and seem to be doing everything they can to try to hobble us. Hopefully we'll succeed but with nothnig to do with "Gandalf the Whyte"...

Ironically some of the clubs could have set it up to succeed by changing the voting System like they originally planned before coming under the spell of Lawwell. Celtic have been stymied by their own steadfastness to the 11-1 system.

If they just took his word they may look like brushing it under the carpet. an independent report says to the fans they are taking the negative effect of the current scandals seriously.

I wonder how many would respect freedom of speech if just behind them was a banner saying, "We are Nancy boys"... and their mug was on the telly. You really need the consent of those around you before you presume to represent them all with a controversial banner.

Is anyone going to defend Green's right to freedom of speech? Massive irony there. Another hypocritical thing is that people are up in arms about a certain two words that came out of his mouth while being guilty publishing those same words themselves. Really weird. Green gets blasted for saying some people called a guy a racially sensitive name and yet the press do EXACTLY the same thing and get away with it.

Could be weird if the relegated team ends up two divisions higher than the rest...

The ironic thing is that they are fully using the 11-1 voting system in order to block an 11-1 voting system...

PS It seems to me that the one action which would actually benefit 11 of the clubs would be to promote Rangers back to the top - but that is the one thing they won't do. In fact the only reason I can see for the reconstruction now is that it will shaft Rangers once again.

Can someone explain to me why the SPL clubs will be better off if this reconstruction happens? Seems to me that the plans shown display that they will be *worse* off as they will be filtering more money they would have had, down to the lower division clubs. Not only that but a third of them will be involved in the weird middle play-off league that will surely bring in less money than the current set up? I just don't get it and all these claims of job losses etc are given with any substantiation whatsoever. They would be as convincing in claiming if it doesn't happen then the four horsemen of the apocalypse will come. None of it makes sense, including the now or never attitude.

It's not Charles Green in particular I'm talking about, it's the general persecution of anyone for not subscribing to the ridiculous extreme of "politically correct" speech. Or do you think those with high incomes are fair game for any beating? I try to keep my musings fair to everyone - including Green...

I find it offensive that people's words are taken out of context, twisted and used to start a campaign of direct hate towards those individuals - even threatening their livelihood. How can THAT be not only condoned but ENCOURAGED in today's society? It shows our morals have become FUBAR.

Maybe I need someone to explain to me the nature of the offensiveness of the word. It seems to me that the whole derogatory aspect was not he word itself but instead was all about seeing the actual race as somehow inferior and scornful. This attitude does not change no matter how you derive a name for the race as the race itself does not change. You'd really expect derogatory words use allusions to something undesirable for it to really work. Again, "Yid" does not really seam derogatory as I suspect it is short for "Yiddish". I still can't see much difference from "Scot". To me it seems incredibly sensitive to be offended by such non derogatory and derived names. It seems the words become taboo by imaginary offence, when the real offence would not change if the likes of "Pakistani" were used with venom and disgust by an actual racist. There seems little difference in this mock offence than the "Mopery" of a certain section of society and perhaps it's something to educate the country about which would diffuse a lot of racism that is contrived by the schisms in society created by those who demonise others for use of language that has no offence intended. I once had a girlfriend who had Pakistani origin although she was born and brought up here. We had the same discussion and she couldn't see the offence either. It's from this I learned the etymology of the word. I actually lived with her for three years without her parents knowing. Ironically we were thinking about marriage but it wasn't so straight forward because if we went ahead, she believed her family would disown her for marrying a white man and a non-Muslim. Now that is the REAL racism and sectarianism in our country but which is swept under the carpet in favour of causing a furore every time someone doesn't sound PC enough for modern tastes. My assertion that I'm a victim of racism for this is usually met with the word "nonsense" by those people highly offended by the innocuous use of certain words, as I couldn't possibly be white and a victim of racism. It's just a cultural difference...

To be honest I still can't see the problem except for those perpetually offended at absolutely any innocuous remark that refers to race. His first remark was recounting facts from the past and in a way to show that names do not always have racist intentions. I could recount that Jews in the past were sometimes labelled as "Yids" but Tottenham supporters diffused the offence of that moniker by adopting it themselves and called themselves "Yid Armay". So now by printing this the logic of the reaction to Green's faux pas is that I'm guilty of a racist and/or sectarian remark. I could also recount that my brother went to work in the building industry in London and was named, "Smelly sock" by his workmates. That could be offensive but he didn't mind. Damn! I'm guilty of racism again and encouraging youngsters to call Scottish people, "Smelly sock". Then we have the weird situation that you can be racist enough to completely avoid friendship and business with asians but as long as you speak in a PC way in public, you are considered not racist. However, if you have close friends and business associates who are asian and affectionately label them by a shortening of the name of their country then you are racist. I don't see where the racism is in the word "Paki" (I must be even more racist here for saying that). "Pak" means "pure" and "stan" means "land" - the "i" is just there to aid pronunciation. "Paki" to me does not seem much different to "Scot" for a Scotsman (and I've been called a lot worse by English people without damning them). It could even be logically argued that the name of their country is racist to the rest of the world in saying they are the pure race akin to Nazi Germany. But I'm sure even saying that will have loads up in uproar. But I don't see how calling someone "pure" is an insult. As I say I have no problem in being called a Scot and don't take offence at "Jock", "Hamish" or even "Scots Git". I don't like being called "Scotch" but won't report anyone to the police for it. People may say that there is a history of the word "Paki" being used derogatorily but then so has the word "Scot" in England and people here say things all the time mostly in jest like "bloody Scots at it again". It's even more normal a name when you consider that "Pakistani" is a bit of a mouthful. Is an "Afghanistani" [sic] bothered about being called an "Afghani"? Actually they are usual called "Afghans" even though that conjures up a breed of dog. I think the Pakistanis need to take a leaf out of Tottenham's book and own the word, "Paki". As for Green, his only stupidity is underestimating the massive offence created by any allusion to racial names, no matter how innocuous.

If you budget for a club to break even or make a profit, where does your transfer fund come from? Supposing you even budget that in, you then have a set amount - how do you cope when you need to go that extra mile to get someone which slightly breaks the budget? There will be a lot of complaints about failing to get players and losing the ones we have because we will have to draw the line fairly quickly in the negotiations.

I don't think we should care too much - they can only change the rules for the future and we'll be unlikely to fall foul of them again. However, the funny thing is that other clubs who are likely to go to the wall will be facing more severe sanctions due to their own hatred and stupidity. If Hearts go into administration for instance, how many points will they be deducted and what are the new sanctions? If any other club newcos then they are straight to Division 3 with a transfer embargo. I don't think they realise what they have voted for.

While history could be different if instead of spending on the likes of Flo and introducing novel ways of paying them, we'd invested in enlarging a stadium that was for the only time in our history, perpetually packed to the rafters. However, we are where we are now and the size of the stadium is probably about right for our needs. A larger stadium means larger running costs and there are few times we'd be using the extra capacity. Even if we averaged extra 5000 season ticket holders, that only equates to about £2m every year in income, buoyed up by a bit more for Celtic games and top European games. I think that would be a lot less net, when maintenance and running costs are deducted. So it's a very long term return on the investment even if you take for granted the uptake is guaranteed. To add 10k would be a lot more than building a 10k stadium due to the engineering difficulties of the scale of the build and to my guess would be well over £30m. Imagine we spent that money and then still only averaged £47k a game? At 92% capacity, there is already space for more so the lack of capacity is unlikely to be discouraging people where as when we were 98% full, the 2% was mostly from segregation but also many people would not turn up on the day on the expectation of being unable to get a ticket. In our the scenario the risk is that the investment in empty seats would be more of a financial drain. I'd love a 65k stadium that gets an average of 60k a game but I'm not sure if that is ultimately realistic without transferring to a more exciting league like the Premiership or a European one.

You said that it's pompous to judge other people's sense of humour. If people find the above funny then you are saying it's valid humour and only the pompous think it isn't. I'm sorry but it seems you're being hypocritical, you are implying that your opinion is a lead line for how I should act and that if I don't you judge me as, "pompous". Now you're opinion seems to be the lead line in how to act sane in saying I'm losing it. How are you different in saying jibes are poor humour - why are you not pompous? You seem to think you're a special case. The logic is pretty easy and maybe you're just poor at logic so far, that when you don't get it you think someone must be going mad... I think I'm entitled to my opinion of the level of humour or whether something is funny without being called pompous. Just as you are in your last post. I don't get the joke, I doubt many do. The wearing of a mask can be funny if it has a clever, humourous or subtle reference or some kind of irony - but where is it? It's a cheap shot rather than a clever one. I don't see it in this case. Calling someone names can be funny but I don't see the humourous angle here. "Zombie" might have been funny the first few times or even the first few hundred thousand times but just repeating it to annoy people is hardly the epitome of good humour especially when it was made up by Celtic fans; to me it's a bit lame. I am not bothered at all about what they are doing, which is something else you seem to have missed. I'm just saying that they look a bit sad for thinking they are amazing jolly japesters of the first order when it's equivalent to schoolboy humour. I'd be cringing if it was us, just as I cringed when I saw McMillen's reaction. Or am I pompous for having an opinion on that too?

I'm sure you're right about number 2 or maybe I'm speaking from my own point of view. I'm old enough to be pre-Internet and I've never been all for the Protestant Royalist Loyalist Unionist and have known plenty of other Rangers fans that don't either. Not only that but there were plenty who subscribed to that on the surface who did it to fit in with the crowd and didn't really feel any of it deep down. They weren't religious, didn't give a fig about the royal family, and were more Scottish than British with plenty voting for Labour or SNP and very few having time for the Tories. They were the kind of guys who would say FTP as an everyday expletive but have dropped that kind of stuff since it became unfashionable.

Of his missing 9000 fans, how many are turning up to boost the crowd from 38k season tickets to 47k average? I'd expect it is most of them. I would guess that they aren't that big a number really missing.