bluto Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Totally agree. If we had the truth then it could have been a new dawn for Scottish football. It could have been a new dawn for Scottish society. Its more than just a naming debate. Indeed, that is just the very tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, most do not care. They are therefore stuck with the same old and a Scottish football whose basis is defined by bigotry, sectarianism, hatred, violence and cheating. It IS just the tip of the iceberg. So I find div's 'not caring' response a deeply depressing one. Anyone turning a blind eye to the bigotry, cheating, and spivvery etc condones all these things that should be abhorrent to someone who professes to love 'sport'. All I seek is some honesty and openness on the subject. The initial league tables were honest. It had listed The Rangers. The Ibrox fans are being cheated more than any other. Lying to them does not help them. Lying to us... is unexpected, to say the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 If the premiership had stadiums as empty as ours I'm sure that would all change. We are a business but fans think from the heart rather than getting cash in when we could do with extra cash for the playing side. That said I respect different opinions in this as supporting a team is a emotional realshinship. The same fans who want the fans running club, when no one can see eye to eye on a football forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E=Mc2 Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 As others have said, if this is a meaningless game for us and if they are going to win the league and celebrate at our stadium I for one wouldn't want to be anywhere near the place. Give them as many seats as we can at £30 a pop and make a few bob. It would help soften the blow. The alternative of giving them their usual allocation seems daft for the following reasons. 1. We would lose the chance to earn a few needed pounds. 2. They would be celebrating anyhow and it would be just as pain without gain. 3. There could be a safety issue in that they would buy tickets for our end and cause chaos. We should sell tickets at £60 each to include another two home games the following season. Anyone who buys the £60 ticket can receive £60 off the following season's season ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Isnt it odd that many of the posters on this thread who decry that our stewards, club, police etc don't make Sevco or any other decent sized support sit down, as they do the home support, are the same ones saying 'well they will be in the. Home end causin chaos anyway' as a reason to let them havevthe run of our stadium. Also the anount of people saying they dont really care, seems to equate to the amount that don't go to games, ergo they widnae be punted out of a non existent seat anyway! Some people really do hang around waiting to be insulted! Que... Drew, TT, DL, PB, Bulto etc... Etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 It IS just the tip of the iceberg. So I find div's 'not caring' response a deeply depressing one. Anyone turning a blind eye to the bigotry, cheating, and spivvery etc condones all these things that should be abhorrent to someone who professes to love 'sport'. All I seek is some honesty and openness on the subject. The initial league tables were honest. It had listed The Rangers. The Ibrox fans are being cheated more than any other. Lying to them does not help them. Lying to us... is unexpected, to say the least. Dont get what all the fuss is about. The Rangers , Rangers or whatever. You look at the league it reads Rangers does not bother me. I'm like the rest of Saints fans no time for the old firm however if money is to be made a club like us should not pass on it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 We should sell tickets at £60 each to include another two home games the following season. Anyone who buys the £60 ticket can receive £60 off the following season's season ticket. I like your thinking but why stop at £60? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 It hasnt wiped out debt for the main protagonist! Unless you live on planet Zog you cant fail to notice that they are borrowing way beyond their means again. As a spokesman for fairness in football, how do you square the circle you have drawn around yourself above? Why would anyone worry about the financial viability of the "Rangers" project unless they were "Rangers" fans. To be perfectly frank I'd love to see them liquidated again and I'd be happy to see them start back again at the bottom tier of Scottish Football - the Lowland League - boosting the incomes of all the sides they'll come up against on the way back up. I don't understand the obsession some on here have with the club down the road unless it's that they have realised that clubs in the top flight have struggled financially because they do need a strong Rangers and Celtic in that division. Without a strong Rangers there is potentially only one money spinner for clubs that finish in the bottom 6 of the top flight and without a strong Rangers Celtic fans have been gradually losing interest. For all that though Rangers fall and then their rise again has been fantastic news for part time clubs throughout Scotland and frankly I'm delighted about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 What ? A couple of league games against the new club in front of a few thousand fans each time has set these clubs up for "years to come" - you have to be joking ! Go tell that to the boards of Clyde or Brechin who are both publicly bemoaning their current financial plight and those are just the two to do it openly. That money will have cleared debts and possibly set these clubs up for a season or two at the most so not exactly the bright new dawn by the saviours of Scottish football you describe. Rangers have done more harm to the Scottish game in the last 10 years than they will ever fix in the next 50. As was stated in the posts before your sounds like a post lifted straight from the rangers media forums ! Rubbish. First off it's two Clyde Directors who told me about just how much they made from having "Rangers" playing in their division for a season. It did wipe off their debts and it put their club in the black for the first time in 20 years. If Gilmour had his way Clyde would have continued in the red for another 4-5 seasons under their debt repayment plan, fortunately SFL Chairmen weren't as easily mugged off as St Mirren fans and as a result clubs in the lower three tiers have enjoyed the financial results. Who exactly in the lower three divisions do you think were "harmed" by Rangers over the last 10 years? And what exactly damaged clubs in the top flight when Rangers were liquidated? Tell the truth now Ayrshire Saint? Wasn't it the fact that they were all reliant on having a Rangers and a Celtic in the top flight to keep them financially viable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I get the bit Rangers were good for lower league clubs it stands to reason. Excuse my common stupidity Stuart but has Gilmour got to do with Clyde debt ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 If the premiership had stadiums as empty as ours I'm sure that would all change. We are a business but fans think from the heart rather than getting cash in when we could do with extra cash for the playing side. That said I respect different opinions in this as supporting a team is a emotional realshinship. To put that in perspective, last season I took my son down to a Blackpool v Leeds match at the end of a long hard season for Blackpool. Their fans were boycotting the match in a protest against their chairman. There were loads of empty seats in the Blackpool end of the ground while the Leeds section was sold out and over subscribed. To get our tickets we had to pay for them online and then - because we weren't in their database - we were referred into the main office to provide proof we weren't Leeds fans. We managed to convince them, but there were loads of people being turned away because they had Yorkshire accents. I'd scrap all segregation anyway. It's counter productive for football clubs not to sell all their tickets when there is a demand. Fans just need to get over themselves and this ridiculous notion that it's "their" end, "their" seats, "their" territory. It's none of that. The only thing I can agree with is the point someone else made earlier that when St Mirren do these initiatives like letting the ground out to Celtic there seems to be nothing given back to the fans. Surely the money made from those games should be put aside to subsidise a reduction in ticket prices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I get the bit Rangers were good for lower league clubs it stands to reason. Excuse my common stupidity Stuart but has Gilmour got to do with Clyde debt ? I was at the meeting when Gilmour was planning to vote to keep Rangers in the SPL and where he managed to convince St Mirren fans that this was the best thing for the club and for Scottish Football. I watched on in horror as the majority of St Mirren fans at that meeting voted to back keeping "Rangers" in the top flight. I voted against and I made my point very clearly that if you bent the rules for Rangers then you'd be as well stopping Scottish Football right there. After the meeting, publicly in here, Gilmour and I exchanged posts about a claim Gilmour had made about how much money clubs in the lower tier would get so long as they toed the SPL line. His claim was inflated and he subsequently backed down claiming he'd used an old set of figures. I made the point that the small amount a club like Clyde would get from doing as they were told was massively short of what they would get in two home matches against "Rangers". I'm happy that sense eventually prevailed and "Rangers" lost their league status, and were then re-elected - as they were always going to be - to the bottom tier of the senior game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nosferatu Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Stuart, I don't want to see The Rangers liquidated and a second tribute act through the leagues. I want to see them liquidated full stop, end of. Eradicated altogether. I have always advocated that the non OF clubs should resign and start a new league without them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I was at the meeting when Gilmour was planning to vote to keep Rangers in the SPL and where he managed to convince St Mirren fans that this was the best thing for the club and for Scottish Football. I watched on in horror as the majority of St Mirren fans at that meeting voted to back keeping "Rangers" in the top flight. I voted against and I made my point very clearly that if you bent the rules for Rangers then you'd be as well stopping Scottish Football right there. After the meeting, publicly in here, Gilmour and I exchanged posts about a claim Gilmour had made about how much money clubs in the lower tier would get so long as they toed the SPL line. His claim was inflated and he subsequently backed down claiming he'd used an old set of figures. I made the point that the small amount a club like Clyde would get from doing as they were told was massively short of what they would get in two home matches against "Rangers". I'm happy that sense eventually prevailed and "Rangers" lost their league status, and were then re-elected - as they were always going to be - to the bottom tier of the senior game. I was at that same meeting Stuart... and despite SGs best armageddon attempts, I don't think for a minute that the majority of fans supported him. I too had personal communications with the chairman on the matter, which being personal, I chose to keep private. I have done so on three ocassions when I have passionately disagreed with a decision he was supporting that I as a football fan could not... Including a return to a top 10. Suffice to say, had a new club been fast tracked to the second teir of Scottish football, my ST was NOT being renewed and two of us were planning to spend the following season visiting the lower league grounds and supporting the clubs who supported footballing integrity... Aye... The I word! SG was informed of this. I do not think for a minute that you and I were the only two to speak out passionately against the chairman's recommendations... and I believe the majority at the meeting were against it too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Stuart, I don't want to see The Rangers liquidated and a second tribute act through the leagues. I want to see them liquidated full stop, end of. Eradicated altogether. I have always advocated that the non OF clubs should resign and start a new league without them. That's not a realist ambition though nosferatu - and I think deep down you know it too. Look, when Airdrieonians were liquidated they simply bought their way back into the league by buying over the next club that was in financial trouble. That's exactly the route "Rangers" would have taken had they been denied passage back to the senior leagues. I even thought that might have been their game plan anyway despite having been re-elected when the Ken McGeogh story broke. It certainly wouldn't have been that far fetched. St Mirren shareholders desperate to offload their controlling stake in the club and a prospective buyer desperate to get their league status back with potentially huge financial backing from a customer base of over 40,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Added... I thought his recommendation was to admit them straight to the Championship... NOT, as you say, "keep them in the SPL", which would have been impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I was at that same meeting Stuart... and despite SGs best armageddon attempts, I don't think for a minute that the majority of fans supported him. I too had personal communications with the chairman on the matter, which being personal, I chose to keep private. I have done so on three ocassions when I have passionately disagreed with a decision he was supporting that I as a football fan could not... Including a return to a top 10. Suffice to say, had a new club been fast tracked to the second teir of Scottish football, my ST was NOT being renewed and two of us were planning to spend the following season visiting the lower league grounds and supporting the clubs who supported footballing integrity... Aye... The I word! SG was informed of this. I do not think for a minute that you and I were the only two to speak out passionately against the chairman's recommendations... and I believe the majority at the meeting were against it too. My recollection Brian was the only two in the directors room that day that voted against it was Drew and I. I don't remember you being in there but I might very well be mistaken. Others introduced themselves to me but in all honesty I wouldn't be able to match faces with user names on here. I didn't go out into the stands afterwards because I was so angry at what I had listened to in the boardroom and I went off home. I'm going by other peoples reports that night that Gilmour managed to persuade the majority of fans in their to vote his way in a show of hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Added... I thought his recommendation was to admit them straight to the Championship... NOT, as you say, "keep them in the SPL", which would have been impossible. No - he was definitely arguing to keep them in the SPL. Gilmour had no way of influencing the vote for admission to the FIrst Division because St Mirren were an SPL club at the time. It's all available if you want to do a search on Google. On the day Gilmour voted against keeping Rangers in the top flight - Johnston of Kilmarnock abstained. Gilmour went off on holiday having told us all to leave the SFL Chairmen alone to make up their own minds and when they voted to eject Rangers and then to re-elect them to the bottom tier Gilmour was quoted in the press from his holiday ranting about how stupid the SFL Chairmen were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I was at the meeting when Gilmour was planning to vote to keep Rangers in the SPL and where he managed to convince St Mirren fans that this was the best thing for the club and for Scottish Football. I watched on in horror as the majority of St Mirren fans at that meeting voted to back keeping "Rangers" in the top flight IF NOT DOING SO WOULD SEE STAFF WITHIN ST MIRREN LOSE THEIR JOBS Just added in big fcuking letters how Mr Gilmour actually put it to us. Turned out his claims of armageddon and good people losing their jobs was scaremongering. The big question of course is did his scaremongering only come about because of the information he was getting from wankers like Doncaster and company, or did he feed us the job losses line and imminent armageddon off his own back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevo_smfc Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 It's a no from me. Additional knuckle draggers in presence to try and wind us up...just nope. That would actually drive me into staying away from the ground. The Celtic shop/re-branding thing was enough for me accommodating the other half of the old firm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Just added in big fcuking letters how Mr Gilmour actually put it to us. Turned out his claims of armageddon and good people losing their jobs was scaremongering. The big question of course is did his scaremongering only come about because of the information he was getting from wankers like Doncaster and company, or did he feed us the job losses line and imminent armageddon off his own back. I'm sure he was worried Poz - I'll give him the benefit of that. It doesn't really matter where he got the information from does it? He claimed on the night it came from the SPL accountants, who just happened to be the same ones Celtic used - I can't remember their name now. Whatever, I am still adamant that the stance I took was correct. If you treat one club differently from the rest just because of the size of its fanbase you'd have been as well pulling the plug on the game in Scotland forever. Fortunately common sense prevailed and the right outcome was found, even if Gilmour put himself in a rather unedifying position having lambasted SFL Chairmen at the time. I'm certain the outcome has been good for Scottish Football. Wealth has been shared down the divisions thanks to the fact that a club with a large fan base was forced to come up from the bottom tier and the big losers - the sides in the top flight - will soon reap the benefits again, if "Rangers" don't go into liquidation before then. Edited January 12, 2016 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I'm sure he was worried Poz - I'll give him the benefit of that. It doesn't really matter where he got the information from does it? He claimed on the night it came from the SPL accountants, who just happened to be the same ones Celtic used - I can't remember their name now. Whatever, I am still adamant that the stance I took was correct. If you treat one club differently from the rest just because of the size of its fanbase you'd have been as well pulling the plug on the game in Scotland forever. Fortunately common sense prevailed and the right outcome was found, even if Gilmour put himself in a rather unedifying position having lambasted SFL Chairmen at the time. I'm certain the outcome has been good for Scottish Football. Wealth has been shared down the divisions thanks to the fact that a club with a large fan base was forced to come up from the bottom tier and the big losers - the sides in the top flight - will soon reap the benefits again, if "Rangers" don't go into liquidation before then. Agreed in principle.. With the added caveat that not every club will have benefitted by that much as extra policing and stewarding costs would have eaten into the gate money quite substantially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) I'm sure he was worried Poz - I'll give him the benefit of that. It doesn't really matter where he got the information from does it? He claimed on the night it came from the SPL accountants, who just happened to be the same ones Celtic used - I can't remember their name now. Whatever, I am still adamant that the stance I took was correct. If you treat one club differently from the rest just because of the size of its fanbase you'd have been as well pulling the plug on the game in Scotland forever. Fortunately common sense prevailed and the right outcome was found, even if Gilmour put himself in a rather unedifying position having lambasted SFL Chairmen at the time. I'm certain the outcome has been good for Scottish Football. Wealth has been shared down the divisions thanks to the fact that a club with a large fan base was forced to come up from the bottom tier and the big losers - the sides in the top flight - will soon reap the benefits again, if "Rangers" don't go into liquidation before then. I am aware that both you and Drew never budged from your original stance. Which is fair enough. It was entirely your perogative and you were perfectly entitled to do so. My issue is that in your post you claimed you looked on in horror, and I quote, as St Mirren fans who had initially taken the same hardline as you then changed and would have voted to allow Rangers 'an easy ride' or however you would like to put it. What you failed to add, and I added in capitals, was the reason WHY people, myself included, changed their stance. We changed it IF it meant people within St Mirren losing their jobs due to the implications of losing Rangers-associated income. This is the question Mr Gilmour put directly to us. This is a rather important part to have left out of your post though, isn't it? Anyone reading it would think we were lily-livered shitebags while you were a rock, steadfastly willing to hammer the Rangers no matter what. Cheap and uncalled for. It's what I expect from you though. Edited January 12, 2016 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 Agreed in principle.. With the added caveat that not every club will have benefitted by that much as extra policing and stewarding costs would have eaten into the gate money quite substantially. I don't have accounts for each of the clubs and I don't have the inclination to go search but from the few conversations I've had with those I know in the lower leagues they seem to think it's sorted out the debts of most if not all of the bottom 20. It will also have boosted the coffers of many in this division too. Its not just increased gate revenue, there's the advertising, sponsorship, hospitality and the TV money as well. One of the guys in my work even told me that Doncaster of all people was in the press last week claiming Scottish football had never been healthier - I didn't see the story myself. I'd love to see it all happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 I am aware that both you and Drew never budged from your original stance. Which is fair enough. It was entirely your perogative and you were perfectly entitled to do so. My issue is that in your post you claimed you looked on in horror, and I quote, as St Mirren fans who had initially taken the same hardline as you then changed and would have voted to allow Rangers 'an easy ride' or however you would like to put it. What you failed to add, and I added in capitals, was the reason WHY people, myself included, changed their stance. We changed it IF it meant people within St Mirren losing their jobs due to the implications of losing Rangers-associated income. This is the question Mr Gilmour put directly to us. This is a rather important part to have left out of your post though, isn't it? Anyone reading it would think we were lily-livered shitebags while you were a rock, steadfastly willing to hammer the Rangers no matter what. Cheap and uncalled for. It's what I expect from you though. Lily liveried shite bags isn't quite the way I'd put it but you were mugged off. If those jobs ever really were under threat, the threat would have been even greater if the sport was seen as being willing to bend the rules for the big clubs only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted January 12, 2016 Report Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Lily liveried shite bags isn't quite the way I'd put it but you were mugged off. If those jobs ever really were under threat, the threat would have been even greater if the sport was seen as being willing to bend the rules for the big clubs only. Why, in your original post, didn't you see fit to post the reason why the people who changed their stance, (and in doing so, caused you to look in in horror) actually did change? Your subsequent posting completely ignores the question. My theory is you wanted to make yourself look better and more principled than those who shifted. Edited January 12, 2016 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.