Darthter 542 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 No, football clubs are not corporate entities and they should be protected by the associations from being someone's plaything - just ask the hard core Gretna fans. If a football club is being bank rolled by a wealthy owner, and running at a loss - IMHO that equates to an owners plaything!!! Where would Chelsea be without Abramavich??? Man City with out their Arab owners???? Exactly WHY can't a football club be run as a corporate entity??? The whole game revolves around money these days!!! It is more about revenue streams than anything else. How many tickets can we sell.....how much merchandise can we sell.....What else can we do to get more cash from out customers (Not fans). As for the SFA not being a court of Law - strictly speaking they are. The justice courts uphold the law of the land, the sfa uphold the laws/rules of Scottish Football. The reason that so many clubs are in potential financial ruin is because they are not being run on sound business practices!!! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,243 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 A couple of points ... - Just imagine what would happen if the Green folk now decide it is not worth it? The SFA would thus be held directly accountable for the probable demise of the club (and/or forcing it into newco state), after dealing out a verdict they have no right too. - If we appeal to that FIFA Court or an COA, how much time will it cost? The transfer window approaches pretty fast, at least in terms of "legal dating processes". 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DietofWorms Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I have been trying to think of something articulate to post about this shambles..but all that comes to mind is... 'Utter,utter cunts'. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) If a football club is being bank rolled by a wealthy owner, and running at a loss - IMHO that equates to an owners plaything!!! Where would Chelsea be without Abramavich??? Man City with out their Arab owners???? You seem to be loudly agreeing with me there... Exactly WHY can't a football club be run as a corporate entity??? The whole game revolves around money these days!!! It is more about revenue streams than anything else. How many tickets can we sell.....how much merchandise can we sell.....What else can we do to get more cash from out customers (Not fans). Maybe they should be but you've just argued that often they are not. If lots of them are not, why treat them as if they are all corporate entities? I'm not sure which side of the fence you are on here... However, in my opinion they shouldn't be run as playthings or as corporations, they should be run as sporting entities - ie a club. More of a non-profit making mutual. As for the SFA not being a court of Law - strictly speaking they are. The justice courts uphold the law of the land, the sfa uphold the laws/rules of Scottish Football. Again, I think you're kind of arguing against yourself there. You are right, they are there to hold up football law, not corporate law and should act accordingly. They should understand the problems of football clubs more than anyone else and should be there to protect them, not put them out of business due to the acts of one or two people. Football clubs are not normal businesses. If that were so Rangers would probably no longer exist and a lot of Rangers customers would probably now be customers of Celtic! Just as if Tesco went out of business, a lot of their customers would move to their local Asda. There is an obvious difference there, is there not? The SFA should know that too. It is the fans of all clubs who are now suffering due to treating one club like a corporate business. Just whose interests are the SFA there to protect? Shareholders, customers or fans? The reason that so many clubs are in potential financial ruin is because they are not being run on sound business practices!!! I disagree, I think that the model doesn't work and if you apply it rigorously you will probably end up being relegated. It seems to me that fiscally prudent clubs suffer badly and win nothing which is why only half-arsed business principles are applied. Then egos come into play, borrowing becomes disproportionate and you end up with the amount of football debt we have. To be successful in business you need to make a good profit - there is room for many companies to be successful on this metric. To be successful in football you need to win the league - there can only be one. In the former, lots of businesses can speculate to accumulate; in the football world everyone speculates, only one accumulates. Not only that you have to compete with companies that are making exceptional losses but still survive - where does that happen in the corporate world? The only time that happens is when someone gambles to corner the market. That's all fine and well in a cut throat business world, but do you really want it to apply to football? Edited May 17, 2012 by calscot 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,243 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Snatched from FF: + + + In Black and White : Why the SFA Appeal Panel Is Wrong In the D&P statement releaed tonight, administrator Paul Clark makes clear that the sanction appealed against was not available.... In this instance he is 100% correct. The part of the Judicial Panel Protocol that covers sanctions for bringing the game into disrepute specifies the following sanctions: -Fine -Suspension -Expulsion from the game -Ejection from Scottish Cup -Termination Here is a screenshot of the page that covers it. Now it is clear what sanctions the tribunal may impose, the next bit is the clincher. It is in black and white in section 11.5.4 of the JPP that: In Determining an appropriate sanction, and on the basis of its consideration of the range of breach, as set out in Paragraph 11.4, the Tribunal should Determine the appropriate sanction and level of sanction with reference to the guidance on sanctions and Scale of Sanctions provided in the Disciplinary Rules. (11.4 basically says that the panel must consider all factors in relation to the charge and in mitigation when determining what sanction to impose). Put simply, in relation to a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, the Judicial Panel Protocol does not allow for any other sanctions to be imposed than the ones that are listed, and a ban on player registrations is not in the list. Questions must now be asked of the SFA appeal panel, of the SFA's acceptance of their decision, and of Richard Keen QC who "defended" the club. + + + 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Bear 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 GovenAllan, HMRC wanted to keep the club going until the result of the BTC so they could get a judgement to use against other clubs. What's more they knew that they'd get nothing out of a winding up of the club, whereas they'd get something from a CVA. If you recall, they were going other things to make life difficult - arrestment orders etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest govansw1 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 How much is in the RFFF ? As much as you want it to be. Keep donating. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Snatched from FF: 95, and not 94.1 is the relevant part. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) GovenAllan, HMRC wanted to keep the club going until the result of the BTC so they could get a judgement to use against other clubs. What's more they knew that they'd get nothing out of a winding up of the club, whereas they'd get something from a CVA. If you recall, they were going other things to make life difficult - arrestment orders etc. They could've pulled him up on the Paye far sooner Crawford, as you say they weren't slow with getting a court order for the wee tax case. They would've found themselves in the same boat only about 6 months earlier Whyte wanted admin and HMRC played right into his hands by letting it drag on. The Big tax case result will stand up no matter how much they get off us, so saying they were hanging on for the money is a bit far fetched they knew if it came in too high they weren't getting paid. Edited May 17, 2012 by GovanAllan 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caseyjones 0 Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Why no Scottish Cup ban before they start making it up on the fly looking after themselves by any chance. How did they come up with a 1 year ban who was involved in the process of that decision, do we actually believe the 3 muppets sitting on the panel just by themselves went hold on all the sanctions agreed upon by the clubs and written down in front of us arent enough why don't we just make one up on the fly. Then they just pull a 1 year transfer ban a sanction never used or even thought about in the history of Scottish Football out of the hat it stinks to the heavens. At least the Admin guys are actually trying to do something instead of the usual Rangers response, let's bend over and take it up the arse. Instead of having a pop at the only guys fighting this corrupt shower of bastards you should be having a pop at the SFA trying its best to bury it greatest member club. Outrage doesn't change the rules that were agreed on unanimously by the clubs. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.