Wellfan1984 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Why shouldn't the no camp lie? The yes has been since the very beginning.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 By not paying tax they used that money to sign players. It is directly linked to on field events. No doubt. Aye, and while being in liquidation means tha the taxman won't get that back, what I'm advocating is saying to them is "Yes, you can come back. But the sum published as total owing to all creditors will be deducted from all prize money and TV money until that sum has been paid." Future financial punishment will impact on future onfield perfrmances. If they still want to come back with those conditions, they'll be welcome. If they say that they can't manage to run a business in the black like that, then they shouldn't be in the business of running a football team... EDIT Cash to go to SFA Youth Development. Something good might come out of this mess... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah Dosser Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 I'd focus as much money on the playing staff and youth development as possible. Stadium repair comes second. Everything else is irrelevent to me. I think a NO vote would see an inmprovement in our attendances and I don't imagine that SKY will butcher the deal too heavily, so really not buying this 36% - think that is absolute worse case scenario of no TV deal, which won't happen. Maybe more like 15-20%, maybe less with improvement gates and better financial distrubutuion. Sell on a player or two and get to the Europa League group stages and it could be an 36% more money! So aye, I'd cut the freebies, media budget, non-essentials, etc as much as possible before cutting the "football" side of the club. Unfortunately NLC and Strathclyde Fire and Rescue take a different view. Certain repairs have to be carried out to facilitate the issuing of the Safety Certificate required for the stadium to be used. Given that the P O'D stand is a potential firetrap, wooden stand built on top of another wooden stand, the repairs will not go away. Even the 'nose' of every step in the ground has to be painted/ highlighted as part of the regulations and this is a surprisingly expensive procedure. This is just an example but there are issues re the fabric of the stadium that require addressing every close season, ignoring them is not going to make them go away long term and as stated earlier the licensing authority will only provide so much leeway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobey_Dosser Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Aye, and while being in liquidation means tha the taxman won't get that back, what I'm advocating is saying to them is "Yes, you can come back. But the sum published as total owing to all creditors will be deducted from all prize money and TV money until that sum has been paid." Future financial punishment will impact on future onfield perfrmances. If they still want to come back with those conditions, they'll be welcome. If they say that they can't manage to run a business in the black like that, then they shouldn't be in the business of running a football team... EDIT Cash to go to SFA Youth Development. Something good might come out of this mess... The Rangers would no doubt appeal this in court. There has never been any intention to pay back their debts, otherwise a respectable CVA would have been fashioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 what about the bits that are outright lies? charlie left celtic before gazza signed for rangers. He didn't actually say he played for Celtic against a Rangers side containing Gascoigne and Laudrup. I imagine he would have been referring to when he played against them for Clyde. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Up For It! Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Unfortunately NLC and Strathclyde Fire and Rescue take a different view. Certain repairs have to be carried out to facilitate the issuing of the Safety Certificate required for the stadium to be used. Given that the P O'D stand is a potential firetrap, wooden stand built on top of another wooden stand, the repairs will not go away. Even the 'nose' of every step in the ground has to be painted/ highlighted as part of the regulations and this is a surprisingly expensive procedure. This is just an example but there are issues re the fabric of the stadium that require addressing every close season, ignoring them is not going to make them go away long term and as stated earlier the licensing authority will only provide so much leeway. I totally get that and accept it. Was more trying to say "non-essential" reapirs. Also a lot that has to be done to meet UEFA regs for hosting European football. Like if we are paying anything at all towards these new dugout chairs, decorating the corporate areas when it's not needed, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelvinBragg Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 The Rangers would no doubt appeal this in court. There has never been any intention to pay back their debts, otherwise a respectable CVA would have been fashioned. This wouldn't be a punishment. This would be an offer. Yes, with these conditions in place. Or no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Up For It! Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 He didn't actually say he played for Celtic against a Rangers side containing Gascoigne and Laudrup. I imagine he would have been referring to when he played against them for Clyde. Maybe your right.... Quick digging has told me that Rangers beat Clyde 4-1 in the Scottish Cup on Thurs 15th Feb 1996. Whether he, Laudrup and Gascoigne played....I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBA Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Its way to early to start speculating on this sort of thing. Nobody will know for sure what funds we will have until matters draw to a conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muzz Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 i thought the statement was fair. All the board are doing is presenting the facts. e.g. 35% of our income is TV related and that we don't know what the effect of voting them in or out will have on that. Either way they vote, the board can't win, and we should appreciate that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Bellows Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 As a community let US be the ones to start something rolling. Least then we can say that we tried to make our voices heard. Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbcmfc Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 As I understand it this unsigned deal is from 2014/15 onwards, the current deal has 2 years to run. So there should be no immediate drop in TV money. If Dundee come up, they bring a better support than Dunfermline, although not close to rangers for us. For Dundee utd, stjohnstone and maybe Aberdeen, they would probably lose out very little on that front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 i thought the statement was fair. All the board are doing is presenting the facts. e.g. 35% of our income is TV related and that we don't know what the effect of voting them in or out will have on that. Either way they vote, the board can't win, and we should appreciate that. I think we do all appreciate that. However, given that they cant win either way, why is it so difficult to vote the RIGHT/FAIR/SPORTING way? Also the TV money was 35% of our budget last year when we finished third, and the club dont work out their sums on the basis we will finish there every year, so the actual drop in revenue will be less. There maybe a small short term loss on the basis of the TV contract, most fan surveys estimate in the region of 200-300k, however I think that can be made up at the gate and thru the Well Society if we do the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory Bellows Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Why are we listening to these bigoted cheats again? As said before, IF IT WAS ANY OTHER CLUB, THEY WOULD BE OUT BY NOW They knew they were heading to a new company and have stiffed all of their creditors Thank god Diggle is on holiday, or these boards would be in meltdown ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NottsMFC Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 For me, if Sky try to renegotiate the deal downwards due to 'them' not being in the league, the automatic & obvious response is for a boycott of Sky by the real Scottish football fans. After the recent announcement of the obscene amount they are going to plough into the EPL, the fact they may punish Scottish Football if we do what is clearly the RIGHT thing, I would find that completely abhorrent & my Sky/ESPN subscriptions would be cancelled immediately. A question I have, as I have not read/seen anything on it, is how are Celtic likely to vote? Reading around forums it seems to be the common perception that they are voting no, but I'm not aware that the club have given any official indication on this. I would think that putting aside the obvious rivalry, Celtic would be the biggest losers if Rangers are given their due punishment. Voting yes though would obviously put their fans in direct conflict with their board, the same position we find ourselves in today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TvTotherwell Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 This is now the 4th thread about this Newco esc topic in club chat. HOTD or move to another thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 This is now the 4th thread about this Newco esc topic in club chat. HOTD or move to another thread. Fair point. The chat in all of the NEWCO threads seems to be going over the same ground each time, so they've been merged. Should make it easy to keep up with whats being said and so forth. There's now a on-topic thread discussing it as far as Motherwell goes, and an off-topic thread discussing the matter in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Bit disappointed in merging all the threads. Each thread, although to do with the newco fiasco, was about different subjects or scenarios regarding it. If folk can't be bothered to click onto a different thread they didn't need to bother, merging them all has just been largely pointless IMO (at least for something as huge as this) and, if anything, has just resulted in a lot of good points made recently being lost in amongst a load of other stuff. However, more importantly, where has the vote poll gone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 Merging had it's merits, but then Jay makes a good point. Also - poll been deleted = not good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 yip wrong call, should've just stopped the new threads lets hope its the only wrong call! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 However, more importantly, where has the vote poll gone? C'mon, the poll was always going to have the same result. Most folk saying no to NEWCO, whilst one or two saying yes. As for the merger, having scanned through the threads I even saw some instances of the exact same person making the exact same point in two threads! It all covered the same stuff, and I have no doubt that once a decision is reached either way we'll see a new thread to discuss the actual results of it all. We'll end up with one thread pre-decision, and one thread post-decision, which seems about right I reckon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 think what david was trying to say on behalf of the mods and admin, maybes it wasnt the best idea to merge the threads as it now reads very badly to anyone joining the debate and make some responses look stupid out of context the poll has sadly been lost, a poll that many users and visitors from other clubs and groups have been referring to and sadly now cannot be seen, meaning there is no visual indicator of how Motherwell fans feel on the situation but it read something like FUK you I am steelmenonline and I done it, get over it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 There were some who wanted the various threads merged, and some who didn't. As I said, there was pretty much the exact same conversation going on in every thread, which is pointless. The various threads were starting to blur into each other. Also, it won't be long before we get a decision, which will no doubt see a new thread or two to discuss the results. I take on board your point about the poll, and can add another if you feel so strongly about it. I'm sure the same people who voted in it will be back online over the next few days so they can simply vote again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jay Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 C'mon, the poll was always going to have the same result. Most folk saying no to NEWCO, whilst one or two saying yes. Oh aye, I agree with that. However, it was still worthwhile having something concrete to show just how big the support for the no vote was. It was also useful when discussions on forums like Pie & Bovril were taking place about each club's respective polls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted June 19, 2012 Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 David does not speak for any Mod (or any other individual Mod). He certainly doesn't speak on behalf of steelmenonline). IMHO it was a rash decision but it has been done now. Lesson learned, time to move on (and no poll should ever be deleted imo). 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.