Dirthy Filthy Hun Scumbag Vermin (deceased), liquidated & Green abondons ship

[BobbyBiscuit]

Anybody know how much we would lose with no TV Deal? We only get the 4 games each a season on the TV (obviously the infirm get every other game)!

 

It's not just about the money direct from the deal; no TV deal, sponsorship and advertising money drop as a direct result.

 

While I don't think Scottish Football would die without them, there is no way the situation is as rosey as some predict. There would be less money going through the game; we all know the standard of player here is as low as it has ever been... that won't improve with less money.  Foreign players would be less likely to come here, the good players we produce would be less likely to stick around for as long as they are just now and even then, that's not long.

 

People keep citing the 80s, and how ding the huns were then.  It's not a comparable situation because the game is now a "global game" more than ever and the amount of money in it has changed it almost beyond comprehension from the 80s. 

[mizer]

Whyte has flown off to the South of France apparently.

 

 

[Superstar Tradesman]

Yeah, the league would crumble if we didn't have an organisation at the top of it who spent millions of pounds that they didn't have, whilst not paying any tax.

[mizer]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/2012/02/15/rangers-in-crisis-jailed-embezzler-blows-lid-on-the-deals-he-used-to-help-craig-whyte-beat-the-taxman-86908-23749209/

 

A JAILED embezzler has told how he helped beleaguered tycoon Craig Whyte sail from one bust company to another, leaving furious creditors out of pocket.

 

Kevin Sykes, who served an eight-year jail term for a £3million pension fund fraud, set up companies for Whyte to offload liabilities into.

 

The companies were used to take on liabilities to the taxman and other creditors before going bust, in deals he refers to as “the old switcheroo”.

 

Sykes, 51, said he never believed Whyte would pay HMRC a penny of the club’s debt should they lose a £49million tax case with Rangers, which could rise to £75million with penalties.

 

He said: “Let me tell you this, my money is on that not being paid.

 

“Hypothetically, there would probably be an old switcheroo and an insolvency.

 

“I guarantee that there are already some insolvency practitioners lined up, and a big firm of lawyers too.

 

“Somebody might say the intention was always to leave the revenue behind and that was the attraction.

 

“You could dump £49million of debt, hive the business up and have a new clean start and everybody is happy.

 

“You could have the assets out under value and there might be development opportunities around the site.

 

“I think that there will be a hive up to new owners and I think Whyte will do very well from the deal.

 

“I think it would be very strange for him to get involved if he didn’t think there was a deal to be had.

 

“The previous owner was probably a guy of good reputation who couldn’t afford to get his hands dirty. But what did Whyte have to lose?

 

“He has to act within the law and he will say he is acting in the best interests of Rangers.

 

“Nobody is going to mention the cost to the public purse and that the fans have really paid for it.

 

“I would have thought there is already somebody waiting in the wings to buy. That’s what would be my opinion, given that level of debt.”

 

Sykes said there would be no need for Rangers to change the club’s name. He said: “Whatever happens, they will apply under the Insolvency Act to continue using the same name, Rangers Football Club, without changing it.

 

“Because of the history of the club, they would get leave from the court to continue to use the name.

 

“There could be an arrangement whereby a lot of people don’t get paid, including the public purse, and the same people could be left running it.”

 

Sykes believes the next buyer of Rangers would be someone with an impeccable reputation.

 

He said: “They could possibly buy the club from Whyte free of debt and the old company could be buried

legitimately and their hands could be clean.

 

“The reality is often that the deal has been done before any formal insolvency dealings have taken place.

 

“Insolvency practitioners would never admit it on the record but the reality is that they pre-pack companies into administration and out again the same day every day of the week and the taxman gets left behind for millions or even billions of pounds – and that’s legalised cheating of the revenue.”

 

Sykes met Whyte in the early 1990s, when the pair were young wheeler dealers making their first millions.

 

They were introduced by Aidan Earley, the former bankrupt behind a “soccer academy” link-up between Rangers and tiny amateur football club Banstead Athletic, in Surrey, as revealed by the Record last week.

 

Earley’s late brother, Brendan, was Whyte’s right-hand man when the Rangers owner was given a seven-year ban from being a director in 2000.

 

Sykes said: “When I first met Craig, he was in Glasgow. We proposed the structure to him and he liked the idea of it and we set it up. We set it up through Brendan, the accountant.

 

“The liabilities would then be taken off balance sheets in special purpose companies in order that they wouldn’t bring his main trading operation down if there was any problem.

 

“So he was able to be selective in who he paid – and when.

 

“I’m told a lot of money went to different places and didn’t necessarily end up where it should have done.”

 

Sykes was secretary in companies - where Whyte was a director - which were dissolved in the late 1990s.

 

At least 24 companies were wound up while Whyte was a director.

 

Vital UK was the disastrous venture that led to Whyte’s seven-year ban from being a director.

 

They collapsed, owing creditors around £400,000, £33,000 in VAT and £280,000 in income tax.

 

When Vital UK were going bust, all of their assets were sold to a company called Pelcroft. They were immediately sold to another company, which then sold them to another firm.

 

Subsequent litigation by the liquidators of Vital UK managed to retrieve a large slice of the cash back from Pelcroft for creditors.

 

Whyte’s ban was handed down by registrar John Simmonds following a trial at the Royal Courts of Justice Companies Court in London in June 2000.

 

Registrar Simmonds ruled that “the assets of the company (Vital UK) were put out of reach of creditors”.

 

Despite evidence to the contrary, Whyte’s lawyers claimed he had never been a close business associate of Sykes, which he finds astonishing.

 

He said: “Considering I used to go out with him and his wife and my wife quite a lot then I would say that’s more than a fleeting acquaintance.

 

“But wouldn’t you want to play any association with me down?”

 

In 2008, Sykes and Simon Maya were ordered to pay back £1.5million from a £2.9million theft from a Birmingham company’s pension fund.

[fatjim]

Really? I don't think it is somehow.

 

Clearly it means the SPL needs Raith Rovers.

[Jute]

Really? I thought there was an even split eveyone got and then by position.  Cup games etc are different with just those in the Live games getting extra cash.

 

Think your right. Pretty sure everyone gets the same basic amount from the TV deal and then the additional amounts for league position with top two places getting vast majority of the prize money. As you say Cup games are different.

[manc_don]

The game would evolve, whether that would be a positive evolution for the first few years would be debatable. As much as I'm enjoying seeing the huns froth and squirm, there is no way that the league would suddenly be more open. Results against the OF generally don't impact our season anyway. Those attendance figures are from one off games against their nearest rivals. We don't come anywhere near close to the stats against the non-OF clubs at the moment.

 

Dont' get me wrong, I love this and it will certainly be interesting to see where this goes but it won't be as rosey as others make it.

 

Still, GIRFUY Huns! :rofl:

[mizer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14880473

 

Sir David Murray and the fall of Rangers Football Club

By Brian Ponsonby BBC Scotland news website reporter

 

By the early 1990s, Rangers was the undisputed Titan of Scottish football.

 

On the field, the club was on its way to nine consecutive league titles and numerous cup wins.

 

Off the field, its modern stadium, low debt and unmatched financial power looked to have cemented an unbreakable stranglehold on the Scottish game.

 

How then did it fall into financial ruin in less than 20 years? Some answers can be found by looking at the reign of former owner Sir David Murray.

 

Although Craig Whyte was at the helm when Rangers went under, many of the club's financial problems can be traced back to the latter half of Murray's near 23-year tenure.

Rangers momentum

 

The entrepreneur bought the Ibrox club in November 1988 for £6m from Lawrence Marlborough.

 

Aged 37, he was one of the richest men in Scotland through his thriving metals business.

 

Although Celtic had just won the league, Rangers was the club with momentum.

 

Its all-seater stadium, which had been built in the 1970s after the Ibrox disaster claimed the lives of 66 people, was the most modern in Scotland.

 

The club's finances were sound and, on the field, it had emerged from a dreadful decade of under-investment and failure to win the league in 1987/88.

 

During the early years, the club's main rival, Celtic, was in a shambolic state and came within minutes of administration in 1994 before Scots-Canadian entrepreneur Fergus McCann bought it over.

 

As McCann began the long task of building an all-seater stadium and a team to challenge for honours, Rangers forged ahead under Murray's leadership.

 

He sanctioned transfer spending and wage payments previously unheard of in Scottish football.

 

This saw Rangers reverse the flow of talent drain from Scotland and sign players of the calibre of Brian Laudrup and Paul Gasgcoine.

 

Murray also appeared to have the Midas touch in keeping the cash rolling in.

 

He was successful in levering in multi-million pound investments to Rangers from ENIC and South African-based Scots businessman Dave King.

 

Under Murray's stewardship, Rangers won a total of 15 league titles and 26 cups - the bulk of these coming during the 1990s.

 

This dominance, especially in the first half of his tenure, meant Murray was effectively immune to criticism.

 

He held sway over a largely unquestioning support, and a Scottish media which reported his pronouncements with the minimum of scrutiny.

'Dangerous cocktail'

 

Who could forget such statements as: "For every five pounds Celtic spend, we will spend ten."

 

This cocktail of ego, success and unquestioning support, saw Murray sanction moves that would eventually push Rangers to the edge of the financial precipice.

 

When Celtic ended Rangers' domestic run of nine consecutive league titles in 1998, Murray responded in typical fashion.

 

Dutchman Dick Advocaat was brought in to replace Walter Smith and a new team was assembled at enormous cost.

 

During this time a new training complex was built as Murray attempted to position Rangers for a serious tilt at European glory.

 

Two league titles and three cups followed but the immediate cost was a ballooning debt figure.

 

In 1999, this prompted the Bank of Scotland to secure a charge over Rangers' income and assets.

 

This "floating charge" would become hugely significant in the story of Rangers' takeover by Craig Whyte and eventual insolvency.

 

When Martin O'Neill's Celtic ended Advocaat's success in 2001, Rangers' debts were approaching £50m.

 

It was around this time that Murray sanctioned the use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBT) to minimise the club's tax liabilities for employees.

 

Essentially these meant that payments using EBTs did not incur tax and National Insurance contributions.

Tax strategy

 

The problem was, this tax strategy was intended to be used for non-contractual payments to employees.

 

The tax authorities would eventually argue that Rangers used the scheme to make contractual payments to players.

 

It would be 10 more years before this ticking time bomb went off, bringing with it the full force of a decade's worth of alleged underpayments and penalties.

 

In the meantime, Rangers carried on through alternating periods of on-field failure and success.

 

With debt now approaching £80m in 2002, Murray stood down as chairman and handed over running of the club to John McClelland.

 

He returned to the hot seat two years later to spearhead a £57m share issue, designed to wipe out a debt burden which had seen Rangers downsize their previous on-field ambitions.

 

About £51m was raised from the share issue, but £50m of this was underwritten by Murray and effectively transferred off Rangers' books into his company, Murray International Holdings (MIH).

 

Perhaps realising the extent that Rangers had become a personal and financial drain, Murray announced in July 2006 that he was ready to sell the club. It would be some time, however, before he would find an exit.

 

Later that year, Murray announced that Rangers had agreed a 10-year licence agreement with sports retailer JJB Sports.

 

The club received an initial payment of £18m, with a guaranteed minimum annual royalty of £3m.

 

This allowed Murray to further reduce Rangers' debt, which was said, by late 2006, to be just under £6m.

 

This deal coincided with a turbulent on-field period for Rangers which saw Alex McLeish replaced as manager in summer 2006 by the Frenchman, Paul Le Guen.

 

It was not a successful transition, however, and Le Guen exited in January 2007 to be replaced by Walter Smith.

 

His second spell as Rangers manager saw the club rebound strongly on the field, but the initial expenditure to assemble a competitive squad saw the club's debt spiral back up to around £30m.

 

Eventual moves to control costs at Rangers prompted Smith to state in October 2009: "As far as I'm concerned the bank is running Rangers."

 

To make matters worse, the credit crunch in 2008, and ensuing economic downturn, hit Murray's other business interests hard.

Tax demands

 

By 2010, MIH had suffered a £175m loss, prompting Lloyds Banking Group (which took over the ailing Halifax Bank of Scotland) to double its ownership stake in the company.

 

The effect was to cut off another escape route for Rangers through financial help from MIH.

 

If things appeared bleak, they were about to get worse.

 

In April 2010 it finally emerged that Rangers was facing tax demands from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) over their use of EBTs.

 

For more than a year, Rangers sought to dampen concern about the story, saying it had been given expert advice about the legality of its tax strategy.

 

The club pointed out it was contesting the bill in a First Tier Tribunal (FTT) and was "confident" of winning the case.

 

As this issue cast a shadow over Rangers, a bid to buy the club led by London-based property developer Andrew Ellis failed in June 2010.

 

He was to become a member of the Craig Whyte-led consortium, which bought Murray's 85% share holding for £1 in May this year.

 

It later emerged that Whyte paid the £18m debt to Lloyds through his company, Wavetower, which was later renamed The Rangers FC Group Ltd.

 

This meant he enjoyed the legal protection of the "floating charge" and as Rangers' largest secured creditor would be paid first in the event of any insolvency.

 

Following the takeover, Whyte promised a new era for Rangers through an immediate injection of working capital and a "front-loaded" £25m commitment to bolster the club's on-field fortunes.

 

Despite some limited dealings in the transfer market, Rangers crashed out of two European competitions by the end of August, effectively losing out on up to £15m of vital revenue.

Financial woes

 

Earlier in August, it also emerged that sheriff officers had visited Ibrox over an unpaid tax bill.

 

The following month, the veil was finally lifted in court on the extent of the club's financial woes.

 

HMRC had £2.8m of assets ring-fenced in Rangers accounts over an unpaid bill.

 

The club's former lawyers Levy & McRae took an outstanding £35,000 bill to the Court of Session where its own counsel expressed concerns over Rangers' solvency.

 

Further embarrassment ensued when a damages action by former chief executive Martin Bain reached court.

 

A judge granted a warrant to ring-fence £480,000 of Rangers' assets pending the settlement of his case.

 

Lord Hodge granted this on the basis that there was a "real and substantial risk of insolvency" if Rangers lost its FTT against HMRC for disputed tax and penalties totalling about £49m.

 

Although Rangers had established a healthy lead at the top of the SPL, bad news off the field kept coming in October.

 

Club legend John Greig and former chairman John McClelland resigned from their posts as non-executive directors.

 

Days later, former director Donald McIntyre won a legal bid to have £300,000 of the club's assets frozen pending a breach of contract case. He later settled out of court.

 

More damaging headlines followed as the club began to surrender its lead at the top of the league.

Surprise move

 

By the time matters came to a head in February 2012, Rangers trailed Celtic by four points having sold their top scorer Nikica Jelavic in the January transfer window.

 

In a surprise move on 13 January, Whyte confirmed that the club had lodged legal papers to appoint an administrator.

 

HMRC responded, on Valentine's Day, by launching a legal bid to appoint its own administrator.

 

Whyte's legal team won the race and London-based firm Duff and Phelps were appointed to take over the day-to-day running of the club, which suffered an immediate 10-point penalty.

 

Rangers now lie 14 points behind Celtic in the league - effectively ending their title challenge.

 

Larger threats, however, may lie in wait over the horizon for the Ibrox club.

 

If the administrator cannot reach agreement with creditors then the liquidation of Rangers becomes a real and distinct possibility.

 

Since HMRC would appear to be the largest creditor, it would be in a position to block any deal.

 

The days ahead are now about the very survival of Rangers.

 

For the club's fans, these events are cataclysmic.

 

The season is effectively over and the club they love and cherish could be on the verge of folding.

 

As the club's army of fans tries to make sense of this, many will ask questions about the club's tax strategy and financial dealings over the last decade.

 

Uncomfortably for one Knight of the Realm, some of those questions will focus on the role of Sir David Murray in the financial collapse of Rangers Football Club.

[baggy89]

Shite, the sky deal's worth fuck all these days anyway unless yer an old firm fan

 

Aye if Sky want to pull out the non old firm part of the SPL surely wouldn't be that worse off if SPLTV was started with a fair distribution of revenue. I'm sure we'd also get a bit of cash for a terrestrial highlights show that can be shown at a decent time on a Saturday evening or repeated on a Sunday morning.

[BobbyBiscuit]

Aye if Sky want to pull out the non old firm part of the SPL surely wouldn't be that worse off if SPLTV was started with a fair distribution of revenue. I'm sure we'd also get a bit of cash for a terrestrial highlights show that can be shown at a decent time on a Saturday evening or repeated on a Sunday morning.

 

Again though, narrowing your audience just isn't going to be a wise move in the wider scheme of things.

 

If the huns aren't going to be in the SPL then fine, but people will have to put up with Celtic winning the league at a canter pretty much every year for the forseeable future. I know that it doesn't make much difference to us whether it's them or the huns that win it just now, but the SPL is already a joke league, it would make it even worse. Maybe that's what it would take to eventually get a decent standard and a competitive league in the long run, I'm not sure.

 

However, people also need to start accept that a competitive league won't necessarily mean better things for Scottish football. If the standard is as it is now, or worse, you will still struggle to get people through the gates for large parts of the season, maybe not the last 6 weeks or whatever, but people will not pay the guts of £30 at the gate for guys with no more skill than a decent Sunday league player.

[glasgow sheep]

Think your right. Pretty sure everyone gets the same basic amount from the TV deal and then the additional amounts for league position with top two places getting vast majority of the prize money. As you say Cup games are different.

Figures that were posted previously for how SPL Income is distributed.  Not sure, but presume this includes TV money:

 

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%

2 - 4% + 11% = 15%

3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%

4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%

5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%

6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%

7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%

8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%

9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%

10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%

11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

[Tyrant]

Figures that were posted previously for how SPL Income is distributed.  Not sure, but presume this includes TV money:

 

1 - 4% + 13% = 17%

2 - 4% + 11% = 15%

3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5%

4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5%

5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0%

6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5%

7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0%

8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5%

9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0%

10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5%

11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0%

12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5%

 

 

Horribly set out purely for the gain of the Old Firm. As highlighted by the only very slight gap between first and second. Cunts. I take it all the other clubs bent over and voted for this?

[Tyrant]

More positively.. this is how Huns and their desks are being treated at my work today:

 

 

 

Incase it's unclear the "are" has been replaced with "were". 

[mizer]

[scunnered999]

More positively.. this is how Huns and their desks are being treated at my work today:

 

 

 

Incase it's unclear the "are" has been replaced with "were". 

 

Should it not be "we OWE the people"

 

[manc_don]

[fatjim]

They are vaguely human so how could they have ever been people?

[baggy89]

Again though, narrowing your audience just isn't going to be a wise move in the wider scheme of things.

 

Is having the ability to show more games that do not feature one or other of the the OF really narrowing you audience?

Likewise is a highlights program on terrestrial TV at a decent time and thus available to the younger generation narrowing your audience?

 

If the huns aren't going to be in the SPL then fine, but people will have to put up with Celtic winning the league at a canter pretty much every year for the forseeable future. I know that it doesn't make much difference to us whether it's them or the huns that win it just now, but the SPL is already a joke league, it would make it even worse. Maybe that's what it would take to eventually get a decent standard and a competitive league in the long run, I'm not sure.

Surely the Tims by themselves would one not weild the power to arse rape the rest of the league and two not have the wish to do so for the exact reason you have posted?

 

However, people also need to start accept that a competitive league won't necessarily mean better things for Scottish football. If the standard is as it is now, or worse, you will still struggle to get people through the gates for large parts of the season, maybe not the last 6 weeks or whatever, but people will not pay the guts of £30 at the gate for guys with no more skill than a decent Sunday league player.

 

This is true but surely a major consideration in the discussions in how to proceed following the demise of the Huns.

 

[manc_don]

This made me laugh at lunchtime 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17040169

[mizer]

Craig Whyte pictured passing through a London airport earlier on

 

 

[BobbyBiscuit]

Is having the ability to show more games that do not feature one or other of the the OF really narrowing you audience?

Likewise is a highlights program on terrestrial TV at a decent time and thus available to the younger generation narrowing your audience?

 

Yes. On both counts.  Why do you think we'd get more people tuning into the games then than we do now? Because the OF aren't involved? A lovely idea but a romantic one. No one, and I mean no one, outwith those who support them, care about watching the likes of St Johnstone and Kilmarnock, and dare I say it, Aberdeen.

 

SPLTV would be a subscription channel, yes? Showing solely SPL matches? If so, how can you possibly not think that's narrowing the audience?  At the moment our game is available to anyone with Sky/ESPN, so they can watch our games even if they didn't get those channels for that reason.  having a league specific channel reduces the number of people exposed to the league, therefore reducing the number of people exposed to sponsors and advertisers.

 

Putting highlights on early on a Saturday or Sunday... so it's up against an EPL game or a La Liga match, not a great idea.  Again, a romanticised view that the younger generations will tune in and be taken in by the likes of Ross Tokely clogging their way through a sorry excuse of a top flight football match.

 

 

Surely the Tims by themselves would one not weild the power to arse rape the rest of the league and two not have the wish to do so for the exact reason you have posted?

 

Why wouldn't they?  I'm not on about the set up of the league's constitution, i'm talking about on the park. Who is going to challenge them for the league in the next four years, for talks sake, if the huns aren't about?  Everyone else is much of a muchness, no one is strong enough to sustain a challenge to them as has been shown in nearly every season since the mid-90s.

 

Do you seriously think they would hand over anything they didn't need to? They've never once said "We'll give X up for the good of the Scottish game", why would they now? It's self preservation.  They're not going to develop a moral conscience just because the huns don't exist.

 

 

I hate saying all this for a million reasons most of all because it means the Dons are reduced to what they have become in the last 17 years; but it's realism.

 

[bilbobaggins]

This made me laugh at lunchtime 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17040169

 

Tappin' money tae watch Ranjurs   

[bilbobaggins]

Paul Gascoigne has arrived with some beer and chicken.

 

(pinched from another site)

[Penfold]

Celtic's budget would be the one impacted the most and therefore their playing squad would take a drop in quality greater than that at any other club in the SPL. Might not close the gaps but it will reduce it significantly.

 

The current SPL TV deal also restricts the league to a 10/12 team league (it actually stipulates that the OF play 4 times a season, so it restricts the league to guaranteeing them both top 6 football). Any new deal wouldn't have this clause which could allow the SPL to increase to a size the fans want.

 

TV money will reduce significantly, yes. But any drop isn't going to be disastrous. We're talking less money than we've received over the last 12 months in compensation for youth players. Clubs will continue to develop young players (and in some cases be forced to develop more) and in an ideal world would sell them on during contracts (like Hibs) instead of having them leave for compensation fees (like Aberdeen)

 

I don't think there are going to be less fans going to see Aberdeen v Hearts or Aberdeen v St Johnstone just because Rangers aren't in the league. Many clubs will see an increase in interest from their fans in a fairer league setup. Eliminate the 4000/8000 Rangers fans at Pittodrie each season and you need less than 250/500 more fans at each home game to make up for that - ignoring the extra costs the huns fans bring with them.

 

European places will still be there. Our coefficient isn't going to be affected whether it's Rangers being humped in July or Motherwell. What it will do is give more teams outwith Rangers a chance at these games which can bring in revenue and provide them with a chance to sneak a 0-0 at home then 1-1 away.

11-1 voting on some crucial issues can be eradicated, allowing the league to make decisions for the better of the majority instead of for the better of their two strongest sides. The NFL owners work to a motto of the league is only as strong as its weakest team. Something which provides a very competitive and successful league (In both financial and sporting terms)

 

[baggy89]

Yes. On both counts.  Why do you think we'd get more people tuning into the games then than we do now? Because the OF aren't involved? A lovely idea but a romantic one. No one, and I mean no one, outwith those who support them, care about watching the likes of St Johnstone and Kilmarnock, and dare I say it, Aberdeen.

 

SPLTV would be a subscription channel, yes? Showing solely SPL matches? If so, how can you possibly not think that's narrowing the audience?  At the moment our game is available to anyone with Sky/ESPN, so they can watch our games even if they didn't get those channels for that reason.  having a league specific channel reduces the number of people exposed to the league, therefore reducing the number of people exposed to sponsors and advertisers.

 

Putting highlights on early on a Saturday or Sunday... so it's up against an EPL game or a La Liga match, not a great idea.  Again, a romanticised view that the younger generations will tune in and be taken in by the likes of Ross Tokely clogging their way through a sorry excuse of a top flight football match.

 

Why wouldn't they?  I'm not on about the set up of the league's constitution, i'm talking about on the park. Who is going to challenge them for the league in the next four years, for talks sake, if the huns aren't about?  Everyone else is much of a muchness, no one is strong enough to sustain a challenge to them as has been shown in nearly every season since the mid-90s.

 

Do you seriously think they would hand over anything they didn't need to? They've never once said "We'll give X up for the good of the Scottish game", why would they now? It's self preservation.  They're not going to develop a moral conscience just because the huns don't exist.

 

 

I hate saying all this for a million reasons most of all because it means the Dons are reduced to what they have become in the last 17 years; but it's realism.

 

I know I don't tune in if the game doesn't feature Aberdeen there must be several thousand others like me and the same again for other non OF teams throughout the UK so I'd be interested what the projected difference between gaining that audience on top of all the Tims that will tune in to watch their team against losing the Hun subscriptions. An SPLTV isn't just going to show one game a week like ESPN or SKY do. I understand your point regarding advertising revenues dropping for a purely SPLTV station but I'd counter that by honestly saying I'd pay twice what I do for ESPN if Aberdeen were on once a month minimum. Add to that; what's to stop that business model buying UK rights for say the German or more pertinently some Eastern European leagues and generating additional subscriptions and advertising revenue from the UK's immigrant populations.

 

I also understand your points regarding accessible highlights programs and we are 15 years too late to that party but to not try seems defeatist. Also for kids is the standard of football really that important? Surely at that age its about establishing loyalties and gaining brand recognition. I also don't think there are Spanish games on Terrestrial TV either and there's no reason why a terrestrial highlights can't be timed to be after MOTD on a Sunday morning. I also realise there are very few homes without SKY nowadays.

 

I just consider this the ideal opportunity for the SPL to sort out the balance of power and try to implement positive change to the game. To not even try really is the death knell of Scottish football. I realise the jungle jims have never done anything for the good of Scottish football but standing up to them now without their bastard brothers to back them up could result in that ability to be taken away. And really who cares if they walk the league for the next 4 or 5 years minimum if at the end of it there is a chance (however slight that may be) that we end up with a more competitive league.