calscot

I don't see how it needs to be that strategic. At Rangers - and any club really, we should be getting in the best players we can afford that will come. Our player budget should reflect our income. When you are in the SPL, you don't buy a team that you think is just enough to win it - that's what we did in the early 80's and ended up a disaster. You go for a far better team than you think you need (if you can afford it) - and still you'll find it hard - like the Souness years and beyond. The same goes for SFL3 and due to the ban it's really SFL2 - we should buy the best players we can to have the best chance of straight promotion - and still we'll find it hard. But it doesn't matter where we play, why put out a cheaper team than you are able? People don't get big pay rises and stay in the same house with the same stuff, eating the same food and drinking the same wine, we spend what we earn, and the more we earn the better stuff we buy. We made that mistake pre-Souness, we shouldn't spend more than we have but we should be spending most of our income.

It would presumably be the Conference and I’d hope they’d accommodate us at the highest level there so that the next stage would be promotion to League Two. Now that does sound a bit in the wilderness with years to get to anywhere decent but I can’t see how that is much different from SFL3 which will take us at least three years to reach a goal of a mediocre league which apart from Celtic would be lucky to be the level of League One - and there the story ends. Stuck forever in what is effectively a low division. It may only take us TWO years to attain League One from the Conference. That would have us playing the likes of six clubs which last year had the following average attendances: Club ____________ High ____ Low _____ Average Sheffield Wed ___ 38082 ___ 16185 ___ 21336 Sheffield Utd ___ 30043 ___ 15783 ___ 18701 Charlton ________ 26749 ___ 13264 ___ 17485 Huddersfield ____ 18646 ___ 11043 ___ 14131 Preston NE ______ 17518 ____ 9148 ___ 11820 MK Dons _________ 15938 ____ 6405 ____ 8659 The rest average between 3100 and 6800 which is lower half SPL figures. Now take out Celtic from the SPL and League One looks like a far more lucrative league in terms of sponsorship and TV money and will have more romance of playing some unknown teams as well as some well-known bigger clubs on the way. There is the problem that League One, as MK Dons know, is a very difficult league to gain promotion from, and they seem to come close every year without success. However, as a bigger club with more resources, than the likes of the Dons who are just completing their new 32k all-seater stadium, the play-offs surely give us a lot of leeway. There is the possibility, with a bit of investment that we could overcome this hurdle and get straight to the Championship in three years – the same as it takes to get to the SPL. Now that is a very lucrative league which although is incredibly difficult to gain promotion from, it is a far higher standard than the SPL and so even some time spent there would be a better option bar the European games which are increasingly looking like a very short dabble in any case. I think facing reality means that I’d rather be stuck in the Championship – a bit like Cardiff, than stuck in the SPL, as it’s a much higher level, with much higher rewards and there is at least a significant possibility of gaining promotion to the riches of the Premiership – as opposed to zero chance from the SPL. I think we’d have an advantage over most of the Championship sides due to our larger support giving us better income than them as well as the twelfth man effect. The ratio of TV and sponsorship money to gate receipts is still much lower there than the Premiership and so we should be able to compete at the top and hopefully make the breakthrough within five or six years. The attraction of Rangers in the Premiership should not only bring us investment but also better players and managers than the likes of Norwich and Swansea. It should not be beyond reasonable to think we’d become probable permanent Premiership members – albeit as mid table strugglers to start with. There is however, that small but significant chance that we could become one of the top 6 to 8 teams in the Premiership and as such, one of the top 20 - 25 teams in Europe – or we could stay in Scotland and be in something like the top 80 if we’re lucky. So while it sounds like we’d be in the wilderness for years, the reality is that we are already there with no more hope for something better than four games against Celtic and a struggle to get to one the European league stages, only to be trounced by a far richer Premiership team who finished something like eighth in the league. Our initial main goal should not be the Premiership but instead the Championship, as that is still a far better prize that the SPL with a free ticket for lottery every year, and a chance to eventually become a big European player again. If you don't have a ticket, you can't win it.

I think the funny thing about this article is the perception of Celtic fans all thinking we're done and are now 3rd division team and when they are ready to gloat over our 3rd division signings while reading the back pages are instead spluttering over their cornflakes when we sign SPL level players. It sounds like they are saying, "It's not fair, you're not supposed to be buying SPL players, you're in the 3rd division! When you're kicked while you're down, you're not supposed to get back up again."

Never said it was a realistic project in terms of demand, just that it is technically possible.

I don't know if it's careless abandonment - it's obvious now that TV money dominates football and that has limited Europe to five major countries which dominate immensely due to population, wealth and appetite to pay TV subscriptions to watch football. Countries of 5m need not apply. The irony is that we're part of the UK which has over £60m footie mad people with plenty of disposable income. Our Scottish parochialism has ejected us from the party. I can't stand the fact that TV money dominates as it makes a mockery of European football with clubs like Stoke or Swansea now financially massive compared to any Scottish side. However, I still realise it's best to be in the inside of a flawed but rich members only club than a beggar on the street. I used to not want to leave Scottish football behind (although they could perceivably join a possible UK wide league structure in future) due to sentiment for the rest of the clubs, but that sentiment has now been quashed and as Rangers gets itself up from the floor where the rest of the clubs have put the boot in, can anyone blame us from finding a new bunch of clubs to hang around with? I now have no sentiment for the rest of the clubs and I'm now only interested in the welfare of Rangers. If that means looking after other clubs to look after ourselves then fine, if it means walking away to a new league, then also fine. We can't save Scottish football, the writing is already on the wall - lack of TV viewers will make us eternally lame. We could potentially be a Scottish force in Europe by qualifying eighth in the Premiership or we could be a minnow to dabble in the insignificant early qualifiers before being brushed aside and forgotten about through the moribund Scottish system. As always, hanging on to a past that is dying is never a good choice. The problem is that we currently don't have any other choices...

Yes. The point is that we already travel elsewhere to play. It does not change where we are from.

We look like we're to be a middling SPL level of side and so as likely to win the cups as say Kilmarnock - who won it last year but that was a one off in how many years? At the same time, like Kilmarnock, we may struggle to beat top first division sides unless we're on form.

Do-able but expensive. Not as expensive as say Old Trafford as huge cantilevering would not be necessary - the "goal post" structure could be maintained. Doing the end stands would probably be no more expensive than filling in the corners properly with cantilevered roofs and provide many more seats. When you look at the cost of Hampden, then £30m wouldn't seem unreasonable for that.

Sounds like he's TUPEd into a better wage than he can get elsewhere and at 31 is willing to just run the contract down. The cynical in me says that the most probable reasons for players leaving is a better contract or better competition elsewhere while the one's that stay have realised they will earn more here.

We play in Europe AND we're Scottish, why not play in the UK AND be Scottish? Like Gaelic and the imerial system, Scottish football is looking like a dead duck- sometimes it's best to leave things behind and adopt a new language, new units and possibly a new league, in order to prosper. At least this time a UK league, like the monarchy, would be an extension of what we have already. I live in England and everyone is in no doubt that I'm Scottish - in fact it's obviously more apparent than when I'm in Scotland. My preference would be a European league but in the absence of that happening soon, if a chance came to play join a UK league then I'd jump at the chance as a "needs must". My preference would also be to have my job somewhere nice in Scotland but I'm in England, working for a UK institution, making the most of it and I'm no less Scottish for it. I can't see why Rangers can't do the same - except, unlike me, they wouldn't have to move.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem have the notion that Rangers would "move". They wouldn't move, we'd still play home games at Ibrox but our away games would change and would mostly be in England - just like two away games this season. Rangers are the greatest ever Scottish football team and I doubt joining the FL would change that - Celtic would be bound to follow suit and possibly others and the Scottish league would resemble that of Wales. Swansea are considered the current best Welsh team with Cardiff second. They are not considered lesser to the champions of Wales whom most people couldn't name, me included. I fail to see how we'd cease to be RFC - we're RFC no matter who our opposition are. So are quite a few other teams that start with 'R'. I can't see a single reason why that would change. Football evolves and no-one would have guessed we'd be the the third division in Scotland but it doesn't change who we are, it's just part of our journey through time.

I get the impression now that if a team with few fans and a tiny stadium that meets the safety standards, gains entry to the EPL, they could be competitive and stay there as long as they are well managed. Teams get and average of over £50m from Sky which could make gate receipts almost irrelevant once you take off the maintenance costs of the stadium as well as security and policing etc. Of course you'll also attract less advertising but if you're basic costs are minimal then you have say, £45m to spend on wages which is twice what we were paying. With a good manager and scouts, you could easily be as competitive with any mid-table team downwards. This is why teams like Stoke, Bolton (now relegated) and Wigan can survive for so long and the likes of Swansea can immediately compete well. Outside the top ten, ending at Everton with 33k average, there is little advantage to having 25k over 18k average gate. I'm not even sure the advantage some of the larger crowds are with Newcastle yo-yoing recently. It seems the longer you stay in the Premiership, the stronger you get from the TV money which also attracts bigger crowds. - unless you spend badly, perform badly for your investment or overspend. I used to think of Sunderland as an unambitious second tier club which averaged about 18k at games and did very little. Now they average £40k and are the 7th most supported club in the country - from a population of 280k and a large local rival like Newcastle. You have to wonder why a city the size of Edinburgh with almost 500k people cannot compete with that and have two clubs which aggregate less than 30k support. So I think being a Premiership mainstay is all about spending your TV money wisely and it shows why so many clubs actually break the bank trying to get there and compete in their first season. If we worked our way up their system, promotion to the top tier and staying there would being incredibly difficult, even with 50+k fans behind us - especially with a philosophy which avoids another chance of our oblivion. However, if we don't go down that route, we'll end up in a cash poor, football backwater full of feuding hatred, only to stagnate for the rest of time.

I'm of the opinion that there should be no backdated sanctions for either club. However, if I was to choose the most deserving crime for title stripping between the two, I would say covering up child abuse has a far greater case with a precedent of Penn State, while a different semantic argument about what constitutes a contract seems pretty silly which is reflected in no precedent in England. There is also the inconsistency that Celtic are not in the dock for dual contracts. If the so-called crime so heinous that titles be stripped then they should be severely punished and possibly relegated. There is also the difference that the SPL had all the information for 12 years about the EBT's and the HMRC investigation is irrelevant to this as it's about dual contracts, not the tax issue. The SPL did nothing which is basically incompetence which turns into unfair entrapments. In contrast, the child abuse cover was by it's very nature, kept from the authorities. It's not like Celtic files reports of child abuse every year and the SFL chose to ignore it. So while the child abuse is probably best forgotten about, it is being brought back to the surface by Celtic claiming that heinous crimes have to retroscpectively be punished and then picking on about the most innocuous thing possible.

Costs are difficult to calculate as they vary with our activities.

I was referring to post #7 which was needlessly antagonistic and so ironically divisive...

Sometimes it's worth working things out for yourself instead of blindly and innaccurately regurgitating what you read. Ibrox is not in England no matter what you call the leagues and there are also some Welsh clubs in so called "English" leagues. There is in addition the near certainty of at least one other Scottish club following us to the Football League if we won the hypothetical case and were allowed to join. Don't know why some people are so quick to be arsey these days instead of just getting a simple point.

You mean follow the team in the UK?

Just looked it up and the Emirates stadium cost £470m.

We can't afford to move - only clubs in high priced real estate areas can do this as they sell their old site for redevelopment and Govan is pretty worthless. A new 50k stadium must be about £300m minimum these days, probably more. Where would we get that kind of money? But why move when we have a purpose build stadium already with an incredible history and A listed facade? If we're only getting 20k a game in the next few seasons I'll be pretty disgusted with those who no longer turn up. I'm hoping our fans are as loyal as most of the names of our supporters clubs suggest. If I was near Glasgow, I'd definitely be going to most home games. I'm hoping it will be more like 40k. I can't see much redevelopment apart from general maintenance and essential repairs. Perhaps we can sand-blast and repaint etc when we get promoted to the SPL. I have another thread with a suggestion about safe standing but that's about all I can see as a change.

Just thinking this could be something to help attract some of the less convinced fans back, and as an interesting experiment to show that there is a place for safe standing in British stadiums. We could start with just 1000 places which could possibly take the place of say 800 seats and actually increase the capacity of the stadium. If we get the rules changed, that could be a cheap way of increasing the capacity by say 2500 places (by replacing 10k seats, to 53.5k for Celtic games when we re-enter the SPL. That would bring in at least an extra £150k a year and possibly more like £500k when some other games are taken into account if we're back to capacity due to the excitement of being back in the SPL plus the odd cup game against Celtic.

I think we gave them away to a Lithuanian team...

I would love that, but sadly I think our support doesn't often show its sense of humour.

The point is that the opportunity is there, as there is no rule to stop us outside the top division. There is a consensus that demand for this is there, so the debate is whether it's worth taking the plunge. There is a difference between ripping out seats and dismantling them. Seats are damaged and replaced all the time and so it could be argued that this could pay for itself if the old seats are used for repairs. And like I said, you could charge a premium to those who really, really want this. An extra £3 a ticket over 22 or more games a season would be about £200 for each spectator in just one year. That sounds like it would be way more than enough to pay for it to me - £4000 for a row of 20, £80k for 20x20. I think it would a lot cheaper than that. If people aren't prepared to pay a bit for it for it then they can't want it enough.

I think that the episode with Whyte showed that you need hard evidence before people will listen to your prophecies of doom. Mud slinging just makes the slinger look bad.

It's the German system I was think of but as the cost is prohibitive, I was suggesting that we start with a small experimental area. The point is that there is no rule to stop us. We could even save money by doing without the seat, all it needs is a barrier on every row which although not insignificant, can't be that expensive in comparison with replacing seats ripped up by Celtic fans.