Depends what you pick and choose to read I suppose:

Something I posted today:

From the OP, I can wholly agree with the first two but not the transfer embargo. Also i don't think the SFA have went far enough in some respects but also think that they have some questions to answer.

Whyte's life time ban, nuff said, right and proper.

Fines, again no real issue although the fact that as far as i am aware that no other club has been fined by the SFA for going into administration that does leave a bit of a sour taste in the mouth. Also I think that such a fine should be within the fixed rules of the SFA disciplinary process. On the basis that others haven't had the fine doesn't mean though that the principle of a fine isn't right though.

As for the transfer embargo I have to say this has really annoyed me this morning. In an ideal world I want to see Rangers pay back every penny that is due. if that means my club is substantially weakened even for the next ten years then so be it. if that means demotion to the 3rd division then so be it. Not paying back what is due does not sit right with me.

That is why a newco is not a preferred option for me. the thought of starting over even in the 3rd division debt free is a light penalty relatively speaking and conceivably within 5 years Rangers could win the SPL again.

If though Rangers do not exit administration prior to the next transfer window and all of our players leave how do we continue to operate as a playing squad if we are not allowed to sign replacements? some may say we can sign boys who are under 18 but what would we be doing for their career development putting them out on a weekly basis just to get trounced by all and sundry. a lot of our downfall comes about because of the selfish actions of a few men but a transfer embargo punishes many including those who do not necessarily deserve to be punished.

All that does is potentially push us ever closer to a newco situation which effectively wipes debts without them ever being properly paid. A transfer embargo should apply until we exit administration but if we are able to exit administration there is no basis for such a transfer embargo to continue.

That punishes ordinary fans like me who work hard to try and make the commitment to support the club I love. that is not an equitable punishment in the slightest.

Where the SFA have not went far enough is by failing to punish David Murray as well. he is even more responsible for Whyte for the mess we are in but walks away completely. how can it be fair that this man is not punished but the ordinary fan like me is punished by my club being amde subject to a transfer embargo?

Also the SFA do have some questions to answer. in part they are culpable for allowing Whyte to gain control of Rangers. Surely if you have a fit and proper persons test you surely have to satisy that before taking control. Whyte had been lurking about for months supposedly carrying out due dilligence so it should have been a requirement of him to satisfy the SFA test at that time as well. even if the test is applied after he takes control there should be a deadline of even two months applied to such a test being satisfied. How come it took the SFA until Whyte was gone to complete the fit and proper person test. Who from the SFA is to be held accountabloe for this failure.

It is not even a unique situation too as they dragged their heels over the fit and proper persons test with Graham Rix when he was appointed Hearts manager and waited until mad Vlad sacked him before decreeing he didn't satisfy the test.

In order as far as I am concerned David Murray, Craig Whyte, the SFA and our lazy media are culpable in this mess but amazingly it is me the ordinary fan who will no doubt be shafted the most. that is why I can't just suck it up.

For what it is worth I think a club going into administration should be relegated, that is more than enough punishment.

I dont really pay attention to what is happening at rangers anymore, it just seems to change everyday anyway. I'll wait until the start of next season before i believe anything i hear, see concerning them.

Not sure about this transfer embargo, but didnt lee wallace set up 1 of the goals at the weekend? That doesnt seem right to me, how bad would it have been for hearts say if wallace had scored the winning goal at the weekend and hearts finished a point off the CL spot?? No-one can tell me thats fair, so glad we were not badgered into selling goodie to rangers because that would have been a huge mistake.

The next payment for Wallace is not due until next season so whilst it is money owed it is not money immediately due.

You make a number of reasonable points btg but I don't think rangers were fined for going into administration,but for breaking many rules.

50k of the fine is for going into admin.

btg

Its the whole "you take us down and we'll take you down with us" that I find really annoying. an spl without rangers would be better as far as im concerned. from a purely dundee united point of view it would probably mean the net team from the first division would be promoted to the spl to take their place, ie dundee, so i think any loss of gate money from the rangers travelling support would be cancelled out by the derby games. also i think dundee would take decent travelling support to away games at least for the first season. would also be an attractive fixture to the tv companies

Arab - The rest of the SPL need to understand one very basic economic fact.

TV companies will not be interested in an SPL without Rangers.

Of the SPL clubs, only the OF have enough fans worldwide to make the TV deal worthwhile.

Whilst Dundee derbies may be interesting for Dundee, it will not really spark interest in say Manchester, or Birmingham.

And lack of TV deal, means decline in sponsors, who would not have the huge market visibility the TV deal gives them.

This leads to further decline in the product, and with declining income, clubs have to cut back - fans drift away. Full houses for ANY game are a rarity.

It is just that simple, and it would be exactly the same if it were Celtic in trouble.

Now, with the rest of the SPL ready to jump on the SFA bandwagon to get some sort of cathartic revenge on Rangers, it will only damage them long term.

The SPL clubs maybe do not realise that they can only push Rangers just so far before years of penalties to remain in the SPL become less attractive than starting in Div 3.

One thing is certain, Div 3 clubs would be falling over themselves to get an OF club in their league - even if only for 1 season. The income could make them secure for years.

Not at all convinced by you're argument there daviecoop.

I live in Dundee - not Manchester or Birmingham - and I can't remember the last time I watched an OF derby.

They happen so often that I wouldn't even bother opening my curtains if it was played in my back yard. Seriously. I even avoid the Radio cause I can't stand to hear the likes of Murdo McLeod repeating the same old cliches we have heard for decades over and over.

If a Scottish based football supporter like me aint interested in watchin an OF derby, what makes you think that English based football supporters are interested. They have got a vibrant competitive league of their own - the OF games are important and interesting to OF fans and the Scottish media pundits. That is it. No matter how much pundits such as Chick Young talk it up - the English aren't interested. I lived and worked in England for a good few years and they are just not interested. That's the truth.

Now, an Edinburgh derby Scottish Cup Final? There's something that really does catch my eye & interest. And I will definitely be tuning in to watch that one.

You say that the TV companies will not be interested in an SPL without OF games.

Hmmn - not convinced by that either. Once the league is more competitive - and it will be without Rangers - it will no doubt attract greater attendances at non-OF grounds than we currently see.

The more full stadiums are, the more attractive to the likes of Sky, of that fact there is no doubt.

As for Dundee Utd vs Dundee. I rekon that the Dundee derby is a more attractive game to anyone (who likes their TV football) than Dundee United vs Celtic or Dundee United vs Rangers.

The OF have stifled competition in Scotland over the last few decades. The monotony of either Celtic or Rangers winning the league is the very thing that has driven down attendances.

Maybe liquidation and re-emergence as a newco in Div 3 will be a welcome shot in the arm for Scottish Football. Certainly I - for one - would welcome such a change.

Well said cyber! spot on mate

The OF have stifled competition in Scotland over the last few decades. The monotony of either Celtic or Rangers winning the league is the very thing that has driven down attendances.
_________________________________________

Arguably the chairman of the other clubs who have been happy to exist on the financial drip feed provided by the OF rather than push for a more competitive existence (i.e 16 team league) are just as complicit in stifling competition in Scotland?

Cyber - cannot agree.

And funnily enough, neither do the TV companies. Hence why they pay money for the SPL coverage and clearly stipulate they need 4 OF games per season.

That is the cash cow for the TV companies. They can sell it all over the world, hence sponsors want in too.

Simple economics.

An Edinburgh Cup Final is cute - first time in what almost 120 years or something. But is the Cup Final not BBC anyway?

As to TV preferring a Dundee derby to a Utd V Rangers or Celtic - utter nonsense. TV prefer games they can sell to the biggest audiences. By definition there are more Celtic & Rangers fans than Dundee.

Attendances will go down if nor Rangers or Celtic (or both).

here is why:

No or vastly reduced tv deal, leads to reduced sponsors, leads to clubs cutting back as income falls. Fans see a lesser product and start staying away.

I would say that the OF have been SUPPORTING Scottish football for years. Without the OF there is no big Sky or Setanta (as was) deal.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14825620 Draconian punishment for all!

daviecooper there was football before tv companies got involved and there will be football after too, so the tv companies pull out, then what happens? people realise the only way they can watch their team play is to go and watch them live, just like the good old days!

burnley - yes, but it would be nowhere near the same level, or are you saying that football was better in the 1980s before Sky?

Yes indeed I am dc, you only have to look at crowd levels and how competetive scottish teams were in europe at that time to see how badly we have declined

oh jeez - yeah let's go back to all standing games, wading knee deep in other people's p ish, watching hatchet men lump a leather ball up & down a paddy field.

In a european & world market where like it or not, tv dictates the sport, via the contract cash, sponsors etc., to step back from that and think that somehow you would get a better product is naive at best.

Why would players come to such a league where exposure would be limited, ditto wages etc.?

Strange that you call yourself daviecooper, a legend of that very era that you seem to hate! football was far better then mate, how can you possibly argue otherwise? I for one loved standing on the terraces with a full house at most games and thousands more outside that couldnt get in, big european nights and teams all over europe fearing us! oh yeah its much better now isnt it?

And who cares if players will come or not? we just produce our own mate, you need to start looking at the bigger picture

By definition there are more Celtic & Rangers fans than Dundee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sentence doesn't make any sense BTW.

All you needed to say is 'there are more Celtic & Rangers fans than Dundee'. Correct of course, but I was referring to the 'neutral' who would undoubtedly find a Dundee derby more engaging than United vs Rangers or Celtic.

Face it, real supporters put money into their clubs directly - not via the Sky and the Murdoch empire.

Quite frankly, I don't care if we get a reduced offer for a TV deal, or even no TV deal at all.

I go to watch my team in the flesh, not on the telly. If our teams have less money as a result of Sky pulling out or negotiating a smaller payment for Scottish Football, then they will just have to pay less to the players (or use some business or marketing acumen to come up with more ways of making money).

A TV deal is not the end of the world for Scottish Football. However, a compromise of sporting integrity pretty much kills the 'competition' stone dead.

to the 2 arabs- do you really think that with a far reduced league, falling income etc Scottish teams could possibly compete in Europe?

Face it, like it or not, TV runs football. Without TV you don't have a competitive league.

Without TV, you don't have the exposure to further than local audience.

dc, scottish teams cant compete in europe now! you have a very blinkered view on how football should be, I just want to see my team win trophys, thats what football is all about to the genuine football fan. scottish football will have to go back to basics to get better, and for me the best way of doing that is if sky do pull the plug! lets face it rangers are fecked and its all their own doing so no point trying to make the rest of the clubs feel guilty for seeing it as an opportunity for change.

No TV deal means we can resort to 3pm kick off on a Saturday, wouldn't be dictated to by TV companies to play games on Monday nights or Friday nights, and if it came down to United playing Motherwell on the last day of the season for a Champions League spot you can be pretty sure STV or the BBC would pay to get that game on the box!

I don't care if the people in England watch Scottish football and for the simple matter of integrity Rangers should be hammered, they have broken the rules repeatedly and if they go down the 'newco' route then they should have to start in the 3rd Division, which would miraculously turn into a SPL2/2nd Division so that Rangers could be back in the SPL within 3 seasons.

It's very simple, Rangers have been poorly run for years, long before Craig Whyte became involved, they are now paying the price, like Leeds in England, and just because it is Rangers and they have so many thousands of 'loyal' supporters does not mean that the club shouldn't be punished for their wrondoing in fact it would be very wrong if the club weren't punished, as for the moaning about under 18 players, isn't that what Murray Park built for? To nuture the future of Scottish Football?

CL spot? What CL spot?
There will not be a CL spot, as without a TV deal and the plummet in talent, attendances, sponsors, clubs etc., Scotland will be a footballing backwater.

To get 1 club into either of the actual European competitions would be a major success.

So 3 or 4 qual rounds for the Europa League for the champions of Scotland. And for the rest, nada.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator