EdinburghBlue
-
Posts
1,723 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
9,167 profile views
-
I don’t think our leagues should have clubs which are technically insolvent and where the ‘investment’ is a statement by directors/owners that they will pay the bills if necessary.
-
Generally agree. One of the challenges is that licensing is a blunt instrument, so we don’t know whether Entry easily upgradeable (e.g. Cowdenbeath fans on here saying that their reduction from bronze to entry was because having a doctor at every game - home and away - was unaffordable outside the SPFL) or requires major expenditure on facilities.
-
Fine for clubs in the top leagues with large attendances but given how challenging it is to get a GP appointment or how long you have to queue in A&E do we really want a doctor sitting in the stand among a crowd of a few hundred in the lower leagues?
-
And if you look at Peterhead’s accounts you will see it’s been a financial car crash for them recently.
-
I’ve been told that the award of a grace period is dependent on showing that the club has started work to address the licensing shortfalls and can show that they will be compliant reasonably quickly. Don’’t think it would be unreasonable to allow an automatic grace period of, say, three years, but either only once or cumulatively, so a club couldn’t get promoted, ignore the requirements, suffer relegation, and then come back for another go.
-
Shame about this. If my team has to lose their place in the league I’d rather it was to a team that wasn’t financially doped to buy promotion - too many of these already in the SPFL!
-
Need some Brechin fans on here for their views!
-
-
Makes you wonder whether they don’t want promotion but are trying to shift the blame.
-
Candidate clubs can ask for a short-term waiver
-
Story that Buckie not being allowed into playoffs for failure to meet licensing conditions. £ast Kilbride to get bye to final.
-
Interesting that in England Gateshead have been denied access to the promotions playoffs because they don't have a 10-year lease on their ground but in Scotland we find it acceptable to have clubs in the league with shorter ground tenure arrangements.
-
The size of that fine for Dundee -
I assure you we don’t want to be coming to Boness next season
-
Not necessarily a panacea, as different models have pros and cons. A potential advantage of the share model might be that people who don't live in the immediate area and who can't/see no point in becoming a member see this as a way of putting some money into the club. (Fans, descendants of people who have emigrated from the area, or even people who just fancy having a small stake in a football club.) You are correct about the dilution point on issuing more shares, but if you look at the information on the Companies House website there are clearly a lot of clubs doing this. But two points. First, this need not necessarily be difficult, if with your example you say that the Board has the right to issue up to 200,000 shares or even more when there's demand. Second, it's normal when issuing additional shares that existing shareholders get so-called pre-emption rights, allowing them to invest more if they don't want their share of the business diluted.
