Big Rangers Administration/Liquidation Thread - All chat here!

[ayrmad]

Good to see they're more balanced than normal.

Edited due to spelling like a RM regular.

Edited July 2, 2012 by ayrmad

[thelegendthatis]

The cost of having Rangers/Sevco operating as a football club

We have getting the scare stories of what Scottish football will lose if Rangers/Sevco are either not in the SPL or having to play in Division 3. Never mind them having to take the route that Annan Athletic had imposed on them.

What has not been included in these calculations is the cost of having Rangers at all. (I will call them Rangers to the annoyance of some).

The costs are the obvious ones such as the cost of policing described below from Wikipedia.

The Old Firm rivalry fuels many assaults on Old Firm Derby days, and some deaths in the past have been directly related to the aftermath. An activist group that monitors sectarian activity in Glasgow has reported that on Old Firm weekends, violent attacks increase ninefold over normal level. An increase in domestic abuse can also be attributed to Old Firm fixtures. A freedom of information request found that Strathclyde Police incurred costs of £2.4 million for the seven derbies played during the 2010–11 season, with the clubs only contributing £0.3 million towards that. Other high profile games involving Rangers and Celtic incurred much lower costs.The reason for the disparity in costs and the contribution made is that Strathclyde Police has to increase its activity elsewhere in Glasgow and beyond, while the clubs are only responsible for costs incurred in the vicinity of their stadium.

There is an established method of calculating for example the cost of a person being unemployed, being in prison, through to robberies and fraud. These are used by Governments in targeting their money and activity.

We can add other costs.

1. Travel. Rangers supporters will travel greater distances than other clubs. Just go to any town in Scotland on a Saturday morning and the Rangers buses will be there, as well as individual drivers. Ferries from Northern Ireland etc..And that is just for home games. Can also look at the travelling support to away games.

Let's work out the costs, and the carbon footprint. (Government likes carbon footprints)

2. Policing at games as above. Both home AND away.

3. Policing in local streets as crowds disperse to pubs, travel home and continue their anti social behaviour in their home town.

Includes murders and this is just one http://www.heraldscotland.com/two-more-arrests-after-old-firm-sectarian-murder-1.911043

Some good does result but at a price a civilised society should not have to tolerate. http://nilbymouth.org/about/

The cost of a murder is £1.8 million based on 2009 report.

4. Policing of public transport, vandalism and anti social behaviour. Note new plans for dealing with drunk/drinking passengers on trains. How often have we read of fighting on the ferry back to NI.

5. Domestic abuse. Figures were publicising a few months back. The police were making statements to warn potential abusers.

Also the domestic abuse that is not reported.

http://www.whiteribboncampaign.co.uk/Resources/violence_against_women

6. The people deterred from going to games because Rangers 'fans' are present.

7. Hospital costs, picking up the pieces after games. many outpatients depts now have security guards (extra cost).

I am not saying the issues are exclusive to Rangers. But they are a major contributor. One we now have a chance to deal with in a mature manner that gives us a better Scotland.

What else should be added to the above list?

(Now this the boring bit, but really important! Never thought I would be posting details of this on P&B!)

The Scottish Government has agreed objectives for all bodies it funds. This includes Councils, NHS, Police, Sports bodies (Sportscotland and the SFA) and many more. They each have commited to deliver the 15 targets below.

For Glasgow Council this is what they are saying they will deliver as part of this agreement. Read just the first few pages and you can see how Rangers in its pomp made these things more difficult to achieve. Therefore more costly.

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/A5D72770-3993-438F-B034-1E9CF547CDEA/0/GlasgowsSOA200910Final.pdf

Single Outcome Agreement

1 - We live in a Scotland that is the most attractive place for doing business in Europe

2 - We realise our full economic potential with more and better employment opportunities for our people

3 - We are better educated, more skilled and more successful, renowned for our research and innovation

4 - Our young people are successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens

5 - Our children have the best start in life and are ready to succeed

6 - We live longer, healthier lives

7 - We have tackled the significant inequalities in Scottish society

8 - We have improved the life chances for children, young people and families at risk

9 - We live our lives safe from crime, disorder and danger

10 - We live in well-designed,sustainable places where we are able to access the amenities and services we need

11 - We have strong, resilient and supportive communities where people take responsibility for their own actions and how they affect others

12 - We value and enjoy our built and natural environment and protect it and enhance it for future generations

13 - We take pride in a strong, fair and inclusive national identity

14 - We reduce the local and global impact of our consumption and production

15 - Our public services are high quality, continually improving, efficient and responsive to local people’s needs

Rangers disappearing would help the country work towards most of the target outcomes, and reduce public spending.

What we need is a document which quantifies all the additional costs their existence creates for all of us. This does not even include the taxes they don't pay.

Then present this to the Scottish Government to encourage them to put conditions on any funding going to football authorities either directly from the Government or through any of the other bodies they fund.

Edited July 2, 2012 by thelegendthatis

[pozbaird]

No, Scottish football should operate their own TV channel, that could be the proper saviour of our game in the long term, HJ will say we're too pratted to do it, he's a penpusher, entrepreneurs see hard times as opportunity knocks.

There are millions of exiled Scottish football fans before we even look at how many on this island would purchase the right product at the right price.

I wouldn't entertain SPL TV. I have an ST for St Mirren, and go to some away games. I have Sky - but it isn't for the SPL. It's for the NFL, the golf, the EPL, and the music and arts stuff.

I would see SPL TV as a very risky strategy. Just my gut feeling.

[HibeeJibee]

No, Scottish football should operate their own TV channel, that could be the proper saviour of our game in the long term, HJ will say we're too pratted to do it, he's a penpusher, entrepreneurs see hard times as opportunity knocks.

There are millions of exiled Scottish football fans before we even look at how many on this island would purchase the right product at the right price.

If an entreprenuer wants to pay the upfront cost, and make a pretty good case (and a short-term guarantee) that we'll make more off it after his cut and operating costs than an established broadcaster paying us to do it for us, then I'd take it at the drop of a hat.

Clubs baulked at it with Rangers involved, nevermind without.

[cyderspaceman]

My eyes hurt reading this car crash of a thread. insolvency, cva, ebt YAWN! You diddies are so dull that you can make the demise of Rangers unfunny because that will lead to your demise. GandW Zebra on another thread admitted that we'll lose interest, stop going to your grounds unless of course it's the title clincher. In which case you'll be timetabling defeats to make sure you get us.

Sammy, I honestly do not understand your viewpoint.

Do you actually want "Rangers" to be allowed back into the SPL or indeed the SFL1?

I presume not.

In which case, Celtic are likely to dominate Scottish football for quite a while.

If no challenge arises from the other SPL teams, then you just have to wait until

the Govan Team claws it's way back into contention.

That is IF they actually get a club up and running.

I would have thought that this would please you.

So why the negativity?

Edited July 2, 2012 by cyderspaceman

[Guest Pampered Adolescent]

Maybe time for another musical interlude from my friends:

http://v.youku.com/v...g2NzUzMTE2.html

My personal message to the SPL, SFA and SFL: noting that six SPL clubs, plus Clyde, Morton, Raith and Falkirk have already heeded the song's song's title which is "Grow Up, Stop Fucking Around".

Vive la Xiao Punk!

Cheers and goodnight

PA

[hellbhoy]

Have just seen Green on SSN publicly damning the players who left under TUPE saying they were purely for financial gains leaving the club ! what a hypocritical moron seeing as he is only there for financial gain and has publicly announced that he is there for that reason.He is probably more pissed that he thought he was getting millions of pounds worth of free talent under TUPE for his £5.5 million but got a slap in the puss.

[wunfellaff]

I wouldn't entertain SPL TV. I have an ST for St Mirren, and go to some away games. I have Sky - but it isn't for the SPL. It's for the NFL, the golf, the EPL, and the music and arts stuff.

I would see SPL TV as a very risky strategy. Just my gut feeling.

Norway has just signed a 4 year tv deal at @£40million per season. http://www.tvsportsmarkets.com/news/2011/oct/norwegian-football-domestic-rights-fees-over-33

Are we really that far behind Norway now?

[Mackie The Staggie]

James Traynor in a near and distant future

[Araminta Moonbeam QC]

Have just seen Green on SSN publicly damning the players who left under TUPE saying they were purely for financial gains leaving the club ! what a hypocritical moron seeing as he is only there for financial gain and has publicly announced that he is there for that reason.He is probably more pissed that he thought he was getting millions of pounds worth of free talent under TUPE for his £5.5 million but got a slap in the puss.

Didn't see it but folk on Twitter saying he was claiming that he was going to sue everyone who had left. Complete and utter bullshitter - he's well suited to Ibrokes.

[ayrmad]

If an entreprenuer wants to pay the upfront cost, and make a pretty good case (and a short-term guarantee) that we'll make more off it after his cut and operating costs than an established broadcaster paying us to do it for us, then I'd take it at the drop of a hat.

Clubs baulked at it with Rangers involved, nevermind without.

Who gives guarantees, business is a gamble, using our clubs as a barometer is hardly a slap down.

Mr Doncaster would actually have found his proper position if we had our own channel.

[Florentine_Pogen]

Here comes Traynor...............

[Doink]

Leggo video

[~~~]

I don't see how he could do anything else. Airdrie's position next season is directly affected by the outcome of the vote, and Ballantyne is a representative of both the SFA and the SFL.

Why doesnt he give the vote to the fans instead?

[ayrmad]

I wouldn't entertain SPL TV. I have an ST for St Mirren, and go to some away games. I have Sky - but it isn't for the SPL. It's for the NFL, the golf, the EPL, and the music and arts stuff.

I would see SPL TV as a very risky strategy. Just my gut feeling.

Why wouldn't you be interested if games are shown in a more responsible manner?

Show SPL and SFL games.

Show behind the scenes at clubs.

Show teams in action in their community.

Wee discussion programmes.

Blah blah blah

There are loads of things involving our game you could show, it doesn't have to be like it is under Sky, we can target it to our audience rather than their audience.

Sky doesn't give a shit about me or my club but a tenner a month or so to see my club mentioned and shown occasionally could be appealing.

[wunfellaff]

[HibeeJibee]

Norway has just signed a 4 year tv deal at @£40million per season. http://www.tvsportsm...ts-fees-over-33

Are we really that far behind Norway now?

They do televise every match, though, with often 5 or 6 kick-offs staggerred over a weekend... Their deal is for 240 games while ours is for 60, and I doubt fans here would favour say 1 game on Friday, 2/3 spread over Saturday, 2/3 Sunday, 1 Monday.

However, they're doing very well, yes.

[TheLip69]

Anyone else read that as "we want to vote 'yes' to newco but we don't want to be slaughtered by the fans when everyone else votes no"?

Isnt an abstention counted as a Yes vote anyway?

[wunfellaff]

Why doesnt he give the vote to the fans instead?

'Cos ''allegedly'' he was a (undisclosed) shareholder in a certain defunct club perhaps?

[itzdrk]

They do televise every match, though, with often 5 or 6 kick-offs staggerred over a weekend... Their deal is for 240 games while ours is for 60, and I doubt fans here would favour say 1 game on Friday, 2/3 spread over Saturday, 2/3 Sunday, 1 Monday.

However, they're doing very well, yes.

at the start of the season its like that without the friday game here anyways though