Gordon Waddell: In the greediest economy on the planet...

[ian1964 10,761]

46,490 – Rangers average home attendance so far this season in league games, the highest of any club in Scotland.

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/falkirk-in-numbers/

[ranger_syntax 4,422]

Attendances, European performance, sponsorship deals etc.?

 

So money must be divided in a way to maximize all three of the above, yes?

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Following on from your logic, we should also give away 50% of our matchday income to the opposition to make them stronger.

 

No. Each team's match day income is their own, that's what makes us stronger in the long run.

Edited October 6, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I fail to see why so many Rangers fans are happy for us to give cash away to all of these clubs who so recently shafted us.

 

I am really suprised at this line coming from you BD.

 

#1. I do not suggest we "give away" any of OUR money; I suggest a more equitable share of the SPFL "pot".

#2. The reason I make the suggestion is that we need decent teams to play against. It might mean, for example, that the top two in the SPFL would lose a combined £1.0 - £1.5m a season and the other teams in the League would benefit by about £100k-200k each which could still be graduated to make success worthwhile in terms of money. That might mean that a team like Dundee Utd would be able to retain one or two of the players they sold to Celtic for the remainder of last season. Would that not have made them a better team? Leaving prejuduce against Dundee Utd, or any other team for that matter, aside; wouldn't that be good for Scottish football or do you subscribe to the Doncaster model where Rangers play Celtic every week?

[Bluedell 5,679]

No. Each team's match day income is their own, that's what makes us stronger in the long run.

 

It wasn't at one point. If there's a proposal to change the rules about TV income then why couldn't there be a change in rules about ticket income as well? Surely this would also assist in making the league more competitive? If that's really what people want then why not go the whole hog?

 

Or are you really not committed to the issue of making the league more competitive?

[Bluedell 5,679]

I am really suprised at this line coming from you BD.

 

#1. I do not suggest we "give away" any of OUR money; I suggest a more equitable share of the SPFL "pot".

 

Why is it more equitable? What do the other clubs do to earn their share? Why is the current deal in place? Because of the OF. It's the OF and their fans who create the interest and therefore the commerciality so surely it's equitable to share it based on that, I fail to see why clubs who do very little and have nobody interested in them should get the same share as Rangers.

 

#2. The reason I make the suggestion is that we need decent teams to play against. It might mean, for example, that the top two in the SPFL would lose a combined £1.0 - £1.5m a season and the other teams in the League would benefit by about £100k-200k each which could still be graduated to make success worthwhile in terms of money. That might mean that a team like Dundee Utd would be able to retain one or two of the players they sold to Celtic for the remainder of last season. Would that not have made them a better team? Leaving prejuduce against Dundee Utd, or any other team for that matter, aside; wouldn't that be good for Scottish football or do you subscribe to the Doncaster model where Rangers play Celtic every week?

 

Reducing our income is only going to drag us down and I doubt that we would see much of an improvement in the opposition.

 

Would an equal share of TV cash have stopped Dundee Utd selling their best 2 players to Celtic? No, because Utd still need the transfer income to survive financially, in the same way as every club in the SPL including the OF need it.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

When this was last discussed three years ago there was no proposal to split the gate money; the only proposal was to slightly rejig the "prize money" pot and that's what happened.

 

I am committed to making the league more competitive which would be a benefit to all the clubs; I am not committed to making each club the same.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

Why is it more equitable? What do the other clubs do to earn their share? Why is the current deal in place? Because of the OF. It's the OF and their fans who create the interest and therefore the commerciality so surely it's equitable to share it based on that, I fail to see why clubs who do very little and have nobody interested in them should get the same share as Rangers.

 

 

 

Reducing our income is only going to drag us down and I doubt that we would see much of an improvement in the opposition.

 

Would an equal share of TV cash have stopped Dundee Utd selling their best 2 players to Celtic? No, because Utd still need the transfer income to survive financially, in the same way as every club in the SPL including the OF need it.

 

The current deal is in place despite the fact that one half of the old firm aren't part of it in any meaningful way. A more even distribution of the commercial monies in the SPFL is equitable because all the clubs are equal members of the SPFL and the SFA (excepting our current status).

 

An even split of league mnonies also works to create competition as the NA model shows but it does not prevent dynasties because of the inherent strength of certain franchises of which perhaps the Green Bay Packers (where season tickets are passed down the generations) in the NFL and the NY Yankees & Mets in baseball are prime examples that might be regarded as somewhat similar to the old firm scenario.

 

"Mackay-Steven had already agreed to join Celtic under freedom of contract this summer, but last week the champions had a bid of £150,000 to take him immediately rejected.

 

Matters gathered apace on Monday evening, however, with an improved £250,000 offer finally matching United’s valuation.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2937301/Celtic-seal-2m-double-transfer-Dundee-United-pair-Stuart-Armstrong-Gary-Mackay-Steven.html#ixzz3nrxrFMpQ

 

 

So the answer to your question, is YES it may well have done. I don't think you appreciate the difference a £100k or £200k makes to a Club like DU or even more so clubs like Ross Co, Hamilton, Motherwell, Partick Th etc. Like it or not they are all "Premier" clubs in our set up and that kind of money does indeed make a big difference.

Edited October 7, 2015 by BrahimHemdani

[Bluedell 5,679]

The current deal is in place despite the fact that one half of the old firm aren't part of it in any meaningful way. A more even distribution of the commercial monies in the SPFL is equitable because all the clubs are equal members of the SPFL and the SFA (excepting our current status).

But you are not committed to making all clubs equal. Why should clubs that do little to attract the TV money get as much as those who are integral to it?

 

I guess we could go at this all day and not agree, but unequal splits is how life works. CL cash is distributed in part based on the TV money that each nation generates.

 

Why should a club that is on TV twice a season get as much as a club that generates viewing audiences and is on every second week?

 

An even split of league mnonies also works to create competition as the NA model shows but it does not prevent dynasties because of the inherent strength of certain franchises of which perhaps the Green Bay Packers (where season tickets are passed down the generations) in the NFL and the NY Yankees & Mets in baseball are prime examples that might be regarded as somewhat similar to the old firm scenario.

 

Is the draft pick system not more relevant to the competition issue in American football than the equal spit of TV revenue?

 

"Mackay-Steven had already agreed to join Celtic under freedom of contract this summer, but last week the champions had a bid of £150,000 to take him immediately rejected.

 

Matters gathered apace on Monday evening, however, with an improved £250,000 offer finally matching United’s valuation.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2937301/Celtic-seal-2m-double-transfer-Dundee-United-pair-Stuart-Armstrong-Gary-Mackay-Steven.html#ixzz3nrxrFMpQ

I fail to see why having an equal split of TV cash would have prevented this. This sort of deal happens throughout Europe. Clubs just have to decide whether the deal makes financial sense.

 

So the answer to your question, is YES it may well have done. I don't think you appreciate the difference a £100k or £200k makes to a Club like DU or even more so clubs like Ross Co, Hamilton, Motherwell, Partick Th etc. Like it or not they are all "Premier" clubs in our set up and that kind of money does indeed make a big difference.

If that's the case then why is a club like Motherwell happy to have an empty section of a stand when playing us? It obviously didn't make that much difference.

 

Do most of these clubs not make a loss? Is additional TV money not just going to lessen the loss and make virtually no difference to how they operate?

[ian1964 10,761]

What still irks me is none of these clubs were remotely interested in improving the game in Scotland when they all voted us out of the league,tried to strip us of titles and generally wanted us dead as a club,despite the blue pound keeping them afloat.