Sevco Thread

[Bamber]

Apologies I said Championship, I meant premiership.

Our clubs were ready to vote them straight back into the top league. It was fan power that prevented that. I can't believe you would willingly pretend that wasn't the case.

 

I don't know to be honest

 

Its a bit of a chicken and egg

 

What we know is a meeting was set to decide the fate of Rangers, in the build up to that meeting a lot of fans put pressure on their clubs to state there positions

 

As far as I remember only Motherwell actually asked there fans to have a vote

 

As far as I remember Killie Abstained

 

What were the thoughts of Hearts Aberdeen Celtic Dundee United Inverness etc I don't know and not knowing means I can only speculate as to how they would have voted - Exactly as you are

 

Do I believe fan pressure was brought to bear on a decision - yes for sure. Do I know for certain that the vote would have been to stay with or without that pressure - no I don't haven't a clue

[The Hulk]

 

It was that the whole setup was re-arranged so that they benefitted. Which they absolutely without question did. They spent 2 seasons in the championship picking up all that extra cash that never existed prior to their demise.

 

.......but are you telling me you believe none of this was done to benefit Sevco? Really? Wow.

 

I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that this was done to benefit Sevco. It was done primarily after the demise of the so-called SPL1 & SPL2 idea which had been mooted well before the demise of Rangers.

There's no debate Rangers are soor-faced bastards, but the above argument is a little bit absurd.

 

[Dynamo]

 

I said it came into force the year after the huns went pop - ie 2013. I never mentioned 2012 - anway - that IS splitting hairs - the point being until the huns died, no one had any concern about a fairer distribution in the premier or lower leagues.

 

TV deals were arranged to screen The Rangers games in div 2. When in the history of world football have a 4th tier team been involved in TV deals and had regular live games screened? Never is the answer you're looking for. And as for hibs etc benefiting the most, my argument wasn't that Sevco benefitted the most. It was that the whole setup was re-arranged so that they benefitted. Which they absolutely without question did. They spent 2 seasons in the championship picking up all that extra cash that never existed prior to their demise.

 

I'll accept I got it wrong about the bottom two divisions getting more money if you're telling me that's the case, but are you telling me you believe none of this was done to benefit Sevco? Really? Wow.

 

And neither you, nor Zander, have acknowledged the fact that prize money in the premier was grossly weighted in favour of the top two, up until the scumbags died. That is a fact and both of you have conveniently sidestepped it because it doesn't suit your fingers in your ears argument.

 

TV is the devil when it comes to football. It would be interesting to know if a club with (probably) the biggest support in their country have played in that level before..

 

Do you seriously think if Real Madrid were 4th division in Spain TV wouldn't want to show their matches? Or Man United in England...

 

They draw the ratings (apparently every single FA Cup tie man united have played for over 10 years has been televised, regardless of opposition or home/away).

 

I don't mind people claiming the game is weighted in favour of the big two it's their inability to look at it objectively that makes them look loony.

[Bamber]

 

Still no mention of the prize money for 1st and 2nd prior to huns demise I see?

 

Ignore ignore ignore.

Because that's wrong

 

Along with the assumption it started in 2012 - the SPFL didn't come into being until 2013. Prize money for Div1 and Div 2 remained the same as it was. More money is given in parachute payments for the premiership team dropping down over two seasons than is given to the Championship champions

 

That was done to death last night

[zander]

Still no mention of the prize money for 1st and 2nd prior to huns demise I see?

 

Ignore ignore ignore.

Do you have the figures?

 

As I said moaned when it didn't suit now it does suit you still moan and scream corruption.

[Bamber]

 

TV deals were arranged to screen The Rangers games in div 2. When in the history of world football have a 4th tier team been involved in TV deals and had regular live games screened? Never is the answer you're looking for. And as for hibs etc benefiting the most, my argument wasn't that Sevco benefitted the most. It was that the whole setup was re-arranged so that they benefitted. Which they absolutely without question did. They spent 2 seasons in the championship picking up all that extra cash that never existed prior to their demise.

 

And neither you, nor Zander, have acknowledged the fact that prize money in the premier was grossly weighted in favour of the top two, up until the scumbags died. That is a fact and both of you have conveniently sidestepped it because it doesn't suit your fingers in your ears argument.

 

I have happily acknowledge that prize money was benefitting the top two before - A mistake has been corrected. I see no way that it will be changed back the votes would not be there across all 42 teams.

 

I don't get what point you are making here? that it was best for them to stay down to grab all the extra money that they would gain?

 

St Mirren are possibly going to be awarded more prize money this season than Rangers will (thanks to the reallocation)

 

If hibs can grab 2nd they will also earn more prize money that Rangers

[zander]

TV is the devil when it comes to football. It would be interesting to know if a club with (probably) the biggest support in their country have played in that level before..

 

Do you seriously think if Real Madrid were 4th division in Spain TV wouldn't want to show their matches? Or Man United in England...

 

They draw the ratings (apparently every single FA Cup tie man united have played for over 10 years has been televised, regardless of opposition or home/away).

 

I don't mind people claiming the game is weighted in favour of the big two it's their inability to look at it objectively that makes them look loony.

Correct.

 

Just because most of us here didn't want to see Sevco vs Alloa or the like on the TV I'm pretty sure viewing figures would be higher than say Hearts vs Motherwell.

 

BT and Sky operate a business they want to get as much viewers as possible. Unfortunately a new club in Glasgow have a big following along with an older club from Glasgow.

 

The pull for the TV companies is always going to be the old firm unfortunately the rest of the UK don't give two shits about the rest of us.

[Bamber]

Also to add that clubs don't get given money per game they are shown It doesn't matter how many times you are on TV you don't get more cash (unlike the EPL)

 

So if you look at prize money per match then The rangers and their fans are royally shafted by the TV deal (which is a good thing)

[vanderark14]

Also to add that clubs don't get given money per game they are shown It doesn't matter how many times you are on TV you don't get more cash (unlike the EPL)

 

So if you look at prize money per match then The rangers and their fans are royally shafted by the TV deal (which is a good thing)

 

The one bonus to the huns and tims is that they continue to get more exposure than any other side in the league

[Lencarl]

Scottish Professional Football League chairman Ralph Topping has warned the BBC that clubs will pull the plug on TV highlights and live radio broadcasting rights to top-flight games unless the corporation increases its contract offer.

 

coincidence or not.

[vanderark14]

Correct.

 

Just because most of us here didn't want to see Sevco vs Alloa or the like on the TV I'm pretty sure viewing figures would be higher than say Hearts vs Motherwell.

 

BT and Sky operate a business they want to get as much viewers as possible. Unfortunately a new club in Glasgow have a big following along with an older club from Glasgow.

 

The pull for the TV companies is always going to be the old firm unfortunately the rest of the UK don't give two shits about the rest of us.

 

then its up to the charimen of every other club and those in charge of the SPFL to start promoting the rest of the league together instead of just two teams. Sky and BT cannot be blamed but the teams in our league system can including our own club. They willingly plod along every year with the same old shit.

 

its amazing how many people accept things just because thats the way its always been

[Dynamo]

 

then its up to the charimen of every other club and those in charge of the SPFL to start promoting the rest of the league together instead of just two teams. Sky and BT cannot be blamed but the teams in our league system can including our own club. They willingly plod along every year with the same old shit.

 

its amazing how many people accept things just because thats the way its always been

 

What do you want?

More money or more games of other teams?

 

Incidentally 14 of our 33 league games so far this season have been on TV.

[tup]

Scottish Professional Football League chairman Ralph Topping has warned the BBC that clubs will pull the plug on TV highlights and live radio broadcasting rights to top-flight games unless the corporation increases its contract offer.

 

coincidence or not.

Not. Topping was heavily involved in previous hun shenanigans.

[360]

Let's face it, whether or not they are technically the same club, everyone still thinks of them as Rangers.

 

The length of this thread PROVES it.

[StandFree1982]

Let's face it, whether or not they are technically the same club, everyone still thinks of them as Rangers.

 

The length of this thread PROVES it.

They have the same fans, the same stadium, the same morals and the same badge. They will have the same preferential treatment from SPL/SFA as the previous club. The only real difference is that one has won 54 trophies and this one has won 4.

[robbojunior]

Because that's wrong

 

Along with the assumption it started in 2012 - the SPFL didn't come into being until 2013. Prize money for Div1 and Div 2 remained the same as it was. More money is given in parachute payments for the premiership team dropping down over two seasons than is given to the Championship champions

 

That was done to death last night

 

I never mentioned 2012. I said the season after they went bust. So not wrong. And I am talking about 1st and 2nd place in the prem, not div 1 and div 2.

 

Do you have the figures?

 

As I said moaned when it didn't suit now it does suit you still moan and scream corruption.

 

Pre Rangers going bust:

 

1st -17%

2nd - 15%

3rd - 9.5%

4th - 8.5%

5th - 8%

etc

 

Season after Rangers go bust:

 

1st - 17%

2nd - 10.5%

3rd - 9.5%

4th - 9.0%

5th - 8.5%

etc

 

Hmm... that looks fair.

[tup]

Let's face it, whether or not they are technically the same club, everyone still thinks of them as Rangers.

 

The length of this thread PROVES it.

You only have one style of posting.

 

You should try and mix it up a bit.

[robbojunior]

 

TV is the devil when it comes to football. It would be interesting to know if a club with (probably) the biggest support in their country have played in that level before..

 

Do you seriously think if Real Madrid were 4th division in Spain TV wouldn't want to show their matches? Or Man United in England...

 

They draw the ratings (apparently every single FA Cup tie man united have played for over 10 years has been televised, regardless of opposition or home/away).

 

I don't mind people claiming the game is weighted in favour of the big two it's their inability to look at it objectively that makes them look loony.

 

I'm looking at it entirely objectively.

 

All i'm claiming is that the game is weighted in favour of the big two. Its zander and Bamber who appear to be arguing otherwise.

 

I object to that.

[zander]

Scottish Professional Football League chairman Ralph Topping has warned the BBC that clubs will pull the plug on TV highlights and live radio broadcasting rights to top-flight games unless the corporation increases its contract offer.

 

coincidence or not.

You're point is?

 

He's trying to secure a better deal for all teams not two clubs.

[Lencarl]

You're point is?

 

He's trying to secure a better deal for all teams not two clubs.

Okay, not even going to respond to that.

 

Back to the real world

 

Serial domestic abusers 'will be removed from homes' ahead of Old Firm match, police say

 

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14426810.Serial_domestic_abusers__will_be_removed_from_homes__ahead_of_Old_Firm_match__police_say/?ref=twtrec

[zander]

I never mentioned 2012. I said the season after they went bust. So not wrong. And I am talking about 1st and 2nd place in the prem, not div 1 and div 2.

 

 

 

Pre Rangers going bust:

 

1st -17%

2nd - 15%

3rd - 9.5%

4th - 8.5%

5th - 8%

etc

 

Season after Rangers go bust:

 

1st - 17%

2nd - 10.5%

3rd - 9.5%

4th - 9.0%

5th - 8.5%

etc

 

Hmm... that looks fair.

The prize money changed il accept that. Was it because Rangers left the league who knows? You speculate corruption but the clubs vote this stuff through. Is it fair? Look at other sports competions winners often pick up much higher percentages than the runner up. I'm happy it's now fairer but to make it totally fair they should do away with prize money altogether and pay each club the same.

[muttonhumper]

Did they get into the top flight? The answer to that is NO the clubs quite rightly rejected that and I'm proud our club was one of those who did so. You fear their statements like "sink us an we will sink you"

 

That's nae the point though min.

It's the fact that those in charge of our game tried to force Sevco Scotland straight into the top tier, then subsequently the first division.

Also threatening lower league clubs that if they voted not to put Sevco in 1st Div, then they would be excluded from consideration of any new SPL2.

Even the eventual shoehorning into the bottom division was done after bending and annihilation of existing rules which prohibited the entry of a one month old new club in to the league system.

That is utterly corrupt. Not even up for debate.

 

Incidentally 14 of our 33 league games so far this season have been on TV.

 

Next season we'll be back down to 3 or 4 games televised, all at home, as we were previous to the death of Glasgow Rangers.

(4 being if Sevco manage to get into the top 6).

Maybe they'll chuck in a Hearts game for us to keep us "sweet"...

[zander]

They cried aemageddon and we royally shoved it right up them.

 

We will see a slight drop in tv games but consider they have also been on TV a fair few times themselves so I'd say the tv will continue to show as many Scottish games.

[tup]

Correct muttonhumper.

[Dynamo]

 

 

 

Next season we'll be back down to 3 or 4 games televised, all at home, as we were previous to the death of Glasgow Rangers.

(4 being if Sevco manage to get into the top 6).

Maybe they'll chuck in a Hearts game for us to keep us "sweet"...

 

 

Good. It's fucking shit having games shifted for TV every second week.

[robbojunior]

The prize money changed il accept that. Was it because Rangers left the league who knows? You speculate corruption but the clubs vote this stuff through. Is it fair? Look at other sports competions winners often pick up much higher percentages than the runner up. I'm happy it's now fairer but to make it totally fair they should do away with prize money altogether and pay each club the same.

 

I have not speculated corruption. Corruption suggests backhanders and illicit acts. I suggest blatant bias towards two teams in this country. They're not trying to hide it. The clubs vote it through because they are also run by men who care only about money, and if they cow-tow to the 'big two' then the league as whole get more money.

 

My point, as you still are not grasping it, is that I'd rather all clubs in the league, including the big two were worse off, but that the setup was fair, and equitable, than our club be better off financially, but within a system where two clubs get a grossly over the top portion of all the income.

 

Here's an analogy - Lets say all other clubs in the league get £20 if they agree to a deal where the ugly sisters get £100 each. The alternative is that all clubs including the ugly sisters get £10 each. I'd rather the latter.

 

EDIT - its fucking simple - I want more fairness even if that means less money. Our club chairmen, and the people in charge of the game want more money, even if it means less fairness.

[tup]

Correct, it's all governed by stupidity.

 

We have the longest duopoly in the history of football going on here.

 

That suggests to me we have a massive, massive problem.

 

Those running the game don't even acknowledge there is a problem.

 

There is no solution. The Dons and others should withdraw from the setup, citing inherent unfairness.

[tup]

 

I have not speculated corruption. Corruption suggests backhanders and illicit acts. I suggest blatant bias towards two teams in this country. They're not trying to hide it. The clubs vote it through because they are also run by men who care only about money, and if they cow-tow to the 'big two' then the league as whole get more money.

 

My point, as you still are not grasping it, is that I'd rather all clubs in the league, including the big two were worse off, but that the setup was fair, and equitable, than our club be better off financially, but within a system where two clubs get a grossly over the top portion of all the income.

 

Here's an analogy - Lets say all other clubs in the league get £20 if they agree to a deal where the ugly sisters get £100 each. The alternative is that all clubs including the ugly sisters get £10 each. I'd rather the latter.

 

EDIT - its fucking simple - I want more fairness even if that means less money. Our club chairmen, and the people in charge of the game want more money, even if it means less fairness.

Bias and corruption are essentially the same thing.

[StandFree1982]

TV money should be shared equally between all sides.

 

Correct, it's all governed by stupidity.

We have the longest duopoly in the history of football going on here.

That suggests to me we have a massive, massive problem.

Those running the game don't even acknowledge there is a problem.

There is no solution. The Dons and others should withdraw from the setup, citing inherent unfairness.

They didn't even notice when that duopoly got broken for 3 years and the game flourished for the majority of sides.

[Robbie Winters]

 

I have not speculated corruption. Corruption suggests backhanders and illicit acts. I suggest blatant bias towards two teams in this country. They're not trying to hide it. The clubs vote it through because they are also run by men who care only about money, and if they cow-tow to the 'big two' then the league as whole get more money.

 

My point, as you still are not grasping it, is that I'd rather all clubs in the league, including the big two were worse off, but that the setup was fair, and equitable, than our club be better off financially, but within a system where two clubs get a grossly over the top portion of all the income.

 

Here's an analogy - Lets say all other clubs in the league get £20 if they agree to a deal where the ugly sisters get £100 each. The alternative is that all clubs including the ugly sisters get £10 each. I'd rather the latter.

 

EDIT - its fucking simple - I want more fairness even if that means less money. Our club chairmen, and the people in charge of the game want more money, even if it means less fairness.

Fair comment

 

Am I right in thinking that the EPL is the only major league in Europe where the duopoly's (big 3,4,6 ) do not the £100 ?

So arse cheeks saying we are Barca & Real Madrid so fuck ya's