Jump to content

 

 

SPFL Season declaration challenged legally (ongoing discussion)


Recommended Posts

It was interesting to hear on Sportsound today that the Hamilton chairman doesn't think that fans in stadiums will be allowed until next year and that he hoped most of the games next season would be played in 2021 when crowds return.

 

Like you Gaffer, I hope a plan is in place...

Link to post
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Gaffer said:

This is all heating up nicely and we are in a strong position to get the outcome we want, but I do hope our board is also working on a plan as to how we will survive this season.  I remain concerned about the lack of apparent cost cutting I'd hope to see under the circumstances.  If we cannot return to capacity crowds, how many of our season ticket holders will seek refunds, and what will that do to the stability of our finances?  The board is performing well at the moment in other matters but I want to see some action in this regard also.

I know we're of like mind in this respect and I find myself thinking that there's plenty of credible business experience on the Rangers board to realise the same thing. Might it be therefore that either cost cutting is already planned in and/or some means has been secured to cover costs for at least a period?

 

You know my inclination is to cut costs first and ask questions later but it's also the case that precipitate cost cutting could quickly undo every bit of progress over the last couple of years. So perhaps there's some understandable and practical sense in delaying and minimising the damage that cost cutting could do. Not my way of doing things but I'm not running Rangers and I'm certainly not privy to what I imagine has been a period of considerable background activity on the investor front recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bill said:

I know we're of like mind in this respect and I find myself thinking that there's plenty of credible business experience on the Rangers board to realise the same thing. Might it be therefore that either cost cutting is already planned in and/or some means has been secured to cover costs for at least a period?

 

You know my inclination is to cut costs first and ask questions later but it's also the case that precipitate cost cutting could quickly undo every bit of progress over the last couple of years. So perhaps there's some understandable and practical sense in delaying and minimising the damage that cost cutting could do. Not my way of doing things but I'm not running Rangers and I'm certainly not privy to what I imagine has been a period of considerable background activity on the investor front recently.

https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/interim-chairman-douglas-park-qa

 

This is a link to a transcript Douglas Park's Q+ A with the gentlemen of the Sunday press. 

 

An interesting read, with some pithy responses.

 

The issue of future viability is not addressed, presumably because was not raised, being less of a 'story' than the current imbroglio.

Qs 20 + 21 might be of some relevance

 

Edited by Uilleam
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this answer nicely sums up the press reaction to the dossier:

 

"It’s telling that people with a legal background and those with experience in governance and regulated industries view the issues raised more seriously than others are prepared to.".

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gonzo79 said:

I think this answer nicely sums up the press reaction to the dossier:

 

"It’s telling that people with a legal background and those with experience in governance and regulated industries view the issues raised more seriously than others are prepared to.".

A point that is echoed, somewhat,  by Q14, which is ludicrous, and Park's patient response to whichever ninny posed it.

 

16: Fergus McCann’s pursuit of SFA chief Jim Farry over wrongdoing took three years between 1996 and 1999 before justice was done. Do you see this as a similar type of cause that Rangers have taken up and are you willing to battle for as long as it takes?

 

I wouldn’t draw parallels between this situation and others. We are doing what we think is right for Scottish football as a whole. We will never stop doing what we think is right and we are profoundly aware of our responsibility to the game as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

For anyone who is interested!!!

I listened to most of the show yesterday and worth listening to for 3 reasons;

 

1. Failed trialist getting schooled on law.

2. Maitland admitting he doesn't know what Doncaster does.

3. Kelty and Bora reps reaction to the SPFL pulling out of pyramid play-off and the "pressure" applied to them by SPFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ian1964 said:

IMHO, even if broadcasters will not demand any money back, the very fact that this possibility wasn't mentioned in the voted-on SPFL proposal is worthy of an investigation .... or indeed a walk to the chop-block for those responsible.

Edited by der Berliner
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.