If you say so.

so you know my mind better than myself?

on second thoughts i agree with you, **** the rules and regs SAVE RAGERS!!!!!

lol marty

Where did I ever mention the rules and dismissing them to save Rangers? You're seeing something that I never posted.

I simply said I would rather my major rival remain a major rival, I enjoy the games against my major rival, it's what makes the sport great. If they break the rules then yeah they have to face the consequences but if it was me I'd rather them stay in the league and get themselves sorted so we could do battle for years to come.

That's just how I personally see it. I do think Celtic will/would miss them even if they don't admit it to themselves.

if you say so/kidding yourself implies you don't believe me/my opinion.

whatever, i'll be having a party when rangers die

btw, they didn't miss us when they strolled to 9 in a row, time to suck eggs for them now.

Meh, I guess we just have a different view of club rivalries then.

hmmm imo you'd get weaker. TV money will obv go down considerably and TV money is much much more important today than the 90's. Plus even when Rangers were dominating in the 90s you were still in the league.

Euro money every year>>>>>>>>>>Sky/ESPN money AINEC.

tv money works out at something like £3.2m for the league winners, peanuts in comparison to CL money and EL money still makes it look like buttons. Celtic should have a free run at this for a few years at least and clubs like Motherwell/Hearts and Aberdeen could also improve their lot with 2nd/3rd place money and the Euro funds that follow.

i am prepared to take the gamble on this being right (this is not my theory, but someone with brains).

also the tv deal has been signed and sealed already for the next few years.

--

they can stay in the league, just in the 3rd division as 'rangers united'

You get into Europe every year anyway

Plus correct me if I'm wrong but SPL doesn't have automatic CL group stage qualification and you'll more than likely be unseeded and not even make it


EDIT: afraid to say the current TV deal was signed with the guarantee of 4 old firm games a season so I'm sure there's some clause in there

afraid to say that is bollocks.

sky have the guarantee to show the 4 games if they take place, nothing more and nothing less. (sorry, been interpreted this way by the brains, anything else you/we hearing is just part of the 'save our rangers' campaign)

sky do not have the right to interfere with the league in any way to achieve this. what happens if rangers are just crap and don't make top6 after the split? sky step in and demand they play the 4th game? lol no chance.

--

Europe... getting into CL group stages 1 from every 2 years would be a success financially and is a realistic proposition if we have only 1 qualifying round to play every year. as runners-up we started in 2nd or sometimes 3rd qualifying round, huge difference in the chances of making the group as title winners.

all we get are reasons why it will be bad. what about 'rangers united' in the 3rd division taking thousands of fans with them on their journeys back thru the leagues? surely that would be good for Scottish football with the wealth being spread around where it is most needed.

cool well I hope you're right, just what I heard on Radio Scotland

if you are unseeded in the playoff round not a chance you'll get group stages as often as 50%

as for 'rangers united'...they shouldn't even start in the 3rd division....they should play junior level ...plenty of teams from Highland League etc who have been waiting to get into the SFL for years, although the fact they'll help lower leagues financially I could be persuaded to think 3rd division

haha that's where you're doing it wrong, lol Radio Scotland.

the rangerstaxcase guy had all that ticketus info months ago and plenty more to go with it.

Not possible, DUCY?

When you've already hit rock bottom, you can't go any lower. The league's already on life support and it'll be extinct as soon as the ESPN/Sky contract is dissolved if the Old Firm is broken up.

load of crap

source for the dissolution of contracts when rangers go tits up?

i agree with Clyro, load of crap.

I need to find the link again, but basically there was a clause in the contract that stipulated it could be void without a complete Old Firm; it was established as a deterrent against the OF leaving for England.

i'd like to see the link, cos everything i've read has been nothing but speculation/wishful thinking as part of the 'save our rangers' campaign.

you seem to be in denial Geddy, here start at the beginning.....

http://rangerstaxcase.com/2011/03/

Denial over what?

Regardless, with or without Rangers, do you honestly believe the SPL as built is a sustainable business model anyways? The league is ****ed ten ways to Sunday and it probably has until the conclusion of the current tv deal at best until it's killed off completely.

lol, now we have the conclusion of the tv deal, i thought it was being dissolved?

i'd bet my left nut you are wrong - death/winding up of Scottish football in the next 4 years. there was football before sky and there would still be afterwards.

--

answer me this....what happens if rangers are just crap and don't make top6 after the split? sky step in and demand they play the 4th game?

You are really good at being intentionally thick and reading what you wish, instead of what's actually been posted.

I don't know where I contradicted myself, when I said I remember reading the contract could be dissolved without a complete OF, and then providing my own prediction that this league has "at best" until the end of the existing deal. Try to follow me here - that means, perhaps at worst, the dissolution of the deal could expedite the process drastically, which is what I alluded to at the beginning.

Contract voided = express lane to extinction. Contract upheld = prolonging the inevitable. Clubs are hemorrhaging money everywhere, attendance is falling and the league is no longer able to provide a competitive wage scale for their talent, relative to the modern marketplace for professionals playing across Europe.

Do you not see how those points are separate entities without contradicting each other? Do you see how it's possible the contract could either become void or not become void, depending on what happens?

If you're going to get cheeky, at least retain some continuity.

Football, sure. Professional Scottish football, branded as the SPL? Far less certain. The fact of the matter is the television revenue, paltry as it is, acts as the main buoy that keeps the majority of the league afloat.

When all things are equal and the threat of a 25-point penalty for entering administration isn't a real possibility, everyone knows that's never going to happen. The financial disparity between the OF and the rest of the field is just too damn wide in order for 5 clubs to leap over Rangers and send them to the bottom half. There was more than enough of a sample size for Sky and ESPN before they included that provision in the deal to comfortably postulate the OF will always play 4 games per season given the current setup.

But let's not pretend like the OF isn't the sole reason why Sky and ESPN even have any interest in the broadcast rights whatsoever. It is the only reason. If you're going to lock up the television rights for a two team league, it would be in your best interests for both of those teams to keep playing each other.

Now I feel like I'm going to need to spell this out for you. I am not expressing explicit sympathy for Rangers. I am not insinuating the SPL or Celtic need to go out of their way to save them. But it's foolish to suggest the current league model can proceed unaffected after losing one half of its only true revenue driver. Life after the SPL is fast approaching; whether it comes next season or five seasons from now, the end is nigh.

IMO, it's time for Celtic to abandon a sinking ship and do everything in the club's power to get into the English league system.

Yes Geddy i'm confused because on one hand you say "it'll be extinct as soon as the ESPN/Sky contract is dissolved if the Old Firm is broken up" but on the other hand you say "it probably has until the conclusion of the current tv deal at best until it's killed off completely"

if you were to apply a little consistency and just stop throwing **** out there i might have understood better.

i'm still waiting for that link with the facts of the matter.

--

Sky show fishing for one man and his dog to watch, they show sailing for god knows who to watch, you really believe Scottish football would not get another tv deal?

i think the answer is clearly yes they would but on reduced terms - as is Celtic (if they win the title) will get £3.2m with the bottom team getting near £1m. minus the £3.2m will not break us and the other teams will have to cut their cloth accordingly, pretty simple.

for you to believe Sky have a say in who plays who in the league is crazy, UEFA would have the SFA heads on a plate.

also Celtic finished 5th in the 90's, so it is not impossible for rangers to become that bad and finish 7th or worse.

the product you have been watching until now has been artificially propped up by rangers excess and has been since the late 80's, TV money did not fund this - a free run at CL money and some skullduggery funded this.
--

btw you have no need to be a dick.

another reason why the loss of the tv money would not be catastrophic is if/when rangers go then so does the veto on gate sharing.

lastly, Celtic were 12 hours or so away from going extinct in 1994, nobody said it would be the death of Scottish football - what was said tho is that it is Celtic's problem and good riddance to them.

the shoe is on the other foot now, i say let them die!

Just posted on BBC and I think it touches on this argument a bit.

What is scary is that they still have a decent shot at coming second, even if they lose the 25 points.

lol huns