In the SPL or not?

[Zappa 0]

Yeah, under different circumstances Andy Little probably would have been let go mind you.

 

That is very true actually.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Oh my we keep all the money and the rest don't get any boo hoo.

 

How about the rest along with us invest the money we have in proper youth schemes instead of blowing it all on poor imports, or selling the gems we do unearth to the EPL at the first time of asking. Have a league where your not a couple of bad games away from relegation and have some breathing space.

 

The chairmen of the clubs crying foul we want more, why not put some effort into getting your support of its arse and through the turnstiles instead of wanting the Rangers fans who can be bothered to support their team bail you out time and time again. Simply throwing money at the problem won't fix anything, especially when the guys in charge of the money I wouldn't trust with the kitty on a night out.

 

GA, I am in the fortunate (or unfortunate depending on how you see it) position of having discussed this with Neil Doncaster on a number of occasions and basically he would agree with you, although he will never say so in public, that the diddy teams will always be diddy teams no matter how much money the SPL gives them.

 

However, Peter Houston would tell you that if he had a half a million pounds more a season he would be able to field a much more competitve team.

 

Surely we can all agree that it would be better all round if the other clubs were more competitive.

 

However, Rangers (and Celtic) will always retain a competitive advantage in Scotland becuase of their much bigger fan bases and should also be allowed to negotiate their own TV deals.

 

90% of fans want bigger leagues for precisely the reason you state as well as boredom and there is no reason why each team in the league should not get an even share of the sponsorship money because without the other teams there are no games to play. That said perhaps 50% or 66% might be evenly split with the balance being used as prize money on a sliding scale?

.

[Bluedell 5,348]

Surely we can all agree that it would be better all round if the other clubs were more competitive.

.

 

No. To put it crudely, fuck them!

[pete 2,499]

No. To put it crudely, fuck them!

 

What he said!!!!!!!

[Zappa 0]

GA, I am in the fortunate (or unfortunate depending on how you see it) position of having discussed this with Neil Doncaster on a number of occasions and basically he would agree with you, although he will never say so in public, that the diddy teams will always be diddy teams no matter how much money the SPL gives them.

 

However, Peter Houston would tell you that if he had a half a million pounds more a season he would be able to field a much more competitve team.

 

Surely we can all agree that it would be better all round if the other clubs were more competitive.

 

However, Rangers (and Celtic) will always retain a competitive advantage in Scotland becuase of their much bigger fan bases and should also be allowed to negotiate their own TV deals.

 

90% of fans want bigger leagues for precisely the reason you state as well as boredom and there is no reason why each team in the league should not get an even share of the sponsorship money because without the other teams there are no games to play. That said perhaps 50% or 66% might be evenly split with the balance being used as prize money on a sliding scale?

.

 

I'm not really following you at all. I agree that the other lot and ourselves should be able to negotiate our own TV deals, but without the money from our TV deals what's going to be left for the rest that would increase their prize money? If we were allowed to sell our own TV rights the rest of them would have practically sweet Fanny Adams!

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I'm not really following you at all. I agree that the other lot and ourselves should be able to negotiate our own TV deals, but without the money from our TV deals what's going to be left for the rest that would increase their prize money? If we were allowed to sell our own TV rights the rest of them would have practically sweet Fanny Adams!

 

We wouldn't have rights to away games, which is the bulk of the TV deal for the rest of the clubs.

[Zappa 0]

We wouldn't have rights to away games, which is the bulk of the TV deal for the rest of the clubs.

 

Why should we give up our (theoretical) majority share then? Just to give them all a helping hand because they're smaller clubs and don't have as many fans?

[Guest Brisbane]

You are bang on.

 

Lynch's advisers include Edinburgh solicitor Sandy Moffat. And, using a pseudonym - lets say Adelaide, the one and only David Low.

 

One Celtic Nation player has been quoted as saying they are being paid by THE Celtic.

[pete 2,499]

You are bang on.

 

Lynch's advisers include Edinburgh solicitor Sandy Moffat. And, using a pseudonym - lets say Adelaide, the one and only David Low.

 

One Celtic Nation player has been quoted as saying they are being paid by THE Celtic.

 

I can totally believe this. They done a super underground job on us and still have us by the balls. They are just like the IRA they sing about, putting sleepers in position to strike at a later date.

[RANGERRAB 3,270]

I can totally believe this. They done a super underground job on us and still have us by the balls. They are just like the IRA they sing about, putting sleepers in position to strike at a later date.

 

no one should ever under estimate the job Fullerton & Kane did to us at LBG. Effectively preventing us signing players for 2 years despite chairman AJ substantially reducing bank debt then forcing SDM to sell club to Whyte who was a disaster waiting to happen.