Rangers

SFL chief David Longmuir insists clubs have full picture of Rangers crisis

SFL: Chief executive David Longmuir (left) and president Jim Ballantyne (right)SNS Group

David Longmuir insists a Scottish Football League document urging clubs to take Rangers into the First Division paints the harsh reality of the criticial situation facing the game.

The 30 sides in the SFL setup received a presentation on Thursday saying £18m could be lost from Scottish football if Charles Green’s newco Rangers were forced to go down the accepted road of applying to start again in the Third Division.

A compromise which would see SFL clubs receive an additional £1m in TV money for accepting the Ibrox club into the second tier was mooted, with £2m added onto the gates through travelling supporters.

Critics, including Raith Rovers director Turnbull Hutton, instantly dismissed the document as “blackmail”.

Longmuir though says it paints an accurate picture of the crisis which could envelop his member clubs if they don’t forgo their moral stance.

He told the Scottish Sun: “I’m sure there will be many opinions on the document but it was a factual document. That’s the current reality.

“The document makes it very clear as to what our position is. The facts we have at the moment and that we are currently dealing with are in the document.

“The clubs will have had a chance to digest the document and think about it. There has been a lot of consultation and discussion and people taking a reality check.

“All I want is for Scottish football to thrive and survive. That’s my main ambition.”

Representatives from every SFL side will meet at Hampden on Tuesday to discuss the proposals, although a vote will not be taken.

The SPL will then kick out Green’s application to transfer Rangers’ member share to his new company on Wednesday, leaving the SFL with a decision to make.

Lawyers are deliberating over the SFL’s rulebook to determine what majority would be required for any vote to take place, with those at the league unable to reach a conclusion over whether a 50%, 66% or 75% consensus is needed.

More About Focus on Rangers

People who read this story also read

Comments

There are 22 comments

Longmuir should resign. The rules should not be bent for any club.

Wolf 02/07/2012 Report this place
It will be up to the clubs not only to vote on the future of Rangers but on the future of their own clubs; this I feel is the reality check they must all assess before they vote!

Quiet day on here today; call centre day off?

Co-ordinator 02/07/2012 Report this place
This goes to show the depths of collusion between the Scottish Football Authorities and Rangers Fc This is disgraceful bias towards rangers who should be treated no different than anyone else regardless of threatened loss of revenue. It makes a mockery of justice and the rules, the SFA better start looking at what the rest of the clubs fans actions might be if they continue with their blatent favouritism of rangers under the guise of economics. Make no mistake the leagues will easily survive without rangers or sevco there will be some slight hardship in a transitional period but this is not unsurmountable.

horse 02/07/2012 Report this place
Where's the evidence that this is collusion between Rangers & the bodies? As far as I can see it, it's been written to advise clubs of the reality of life without Rangers based around discussions with commercial partners on the subject of their reaction to the scenarios given. (which would have been Rangers in first division & third division) What is more likely is that this report was commissioned by the chairmen of the SPL clubs who were verbal in their rejection of Rangers SPL application in order to quantify the losses they would incur as a result.

The SPL clubs generally have levels of debt which CANNOT be serviced for an extended period of time without Rangers in the SPL (I believe one of the few clubs without debt is actually St. Johnstone), so it's highly likely that in their considerations many things were taken into account. Anyone sane realises that ultimately creditors have a right to be told when a business decision will be made which dramatically reduces turnover. Like it or lump it, the chairmen of the clubs who said no, all did so, understanding that this deal was either in the process of being put together, or had been put together - why do you think that it took clubs so long to say "we'll vote no"? Simply put, this was on the table and as soon as it was put on the table then clubs got "confident" enough to say no, knowing that there was a "plan B" in order to save their skins.

There's a huge amount of people saying the term "sporting integrity" - in an ideal world that is a very laudible thing, however in Scottish football, it's an impossibility. By definition integrity has been shattered a long time ago, a confirmed twice already there has been no consequence for the team which finished bottom of the SPL. Aberdeen avoided a relegation playoff due to Brockville not "meeting standards", meaning they were spared relegation on a technicality. Motherwell as well avoided relegation when clubs vetoed Falkirk's groundsharing proposal. Sporting integrity would see Rangers apply to Division 3, which is where a number of Rangers supporters actively WANT to start - however that's not a scenario which is commercially acceptable to two groups. The 10 clubs who cannot generate sufficient revenue to survive & service their obligations on their own based around a league with no Rangers & the SPL who again, cannot generate sufficient corporate income without the marketing budget afforded by Rangers inclusion in the competition. Further to that, Sporting Integrity is somewhat redundant where anyone who's not living in cloud cuckoo land can say without shadow of a doubt that Celtic WILL win the league this season without any serious competition - heck I would suggest that in order for there to be any doubt over that you'd have to enforce a 30 point deduction from Celtic!

The truth is that while Scottish football undeniably survives without Rangers, it will be at very best, a shadow of the game it currently is - it is questionable at best if the professional game in Scotland will exist outside of Glasgow. The rest of the SPL outside Celtic as it currently stands are NOT in a position to survive 3 seasons without Rangers under current models, a minimum of 3 clubs will enter insolvency events under such conditions. The debts which clubs owe will be called in as the ability to service them becomes massively reduced as the various sponsorship & media deals fall through - leaving an economic wasteland. Clubs will not be able to pay players sums of money which are acceptable to seasoned players, will not be able to afford to buy players & as a result, the league will deteriorate leaving Celtic in the immediate future to dominate & Rangers when they're on their feet to do exactly the same.

bluenoseam 02/07/2012 Report this place
The Rangers FC that played in the SPL last year are no more. Honestly! They are in administration and the club and directors are the subject of a police investigation. While most fair-minded opinion is open to giving the Newco a licence to play football, they are simply not a viable proposition at the moment. With the new season starting in a matter of weeks, there is just not enough time to do background checks into the viability of the club and the bona fides of the directors. Even aside to criminal investigations, there are no accounts and there is still a dispute over the legality of the assets purchased by Newco. This whole situation just cannot be rushed through to placate those at the top. If it is, it will be done badly and the entire game will suffer for a long time to come - if it even survives. The season should start without them to allow time for this to be cleared up. By all means reform the league and consider including Newco (and Cove, Spartans et al) - but not this year.

TROG 02/07/2012 Report this place
financial meldown?

the sfl division have survived a long time without rangers, so how come soon as they get threatened with the 3rd division and the SPL loose out on money we suddenly find ourself in a financial melt down and need rangers in the SPL?

SFL1 02/07/2012 Report this place
Not only are these executives detailing the reality of life without Rangers to the rest of Scottish football they are detailing fewer lunches, dinners and receptions and the reduced need for executives to attend these 'functions'.

This is the reality facing Scottish football; Rangers and Celtic have disproportionately funded Scottish football both directly and indirectly for years; if either is removed from the equation the income to all clubs in Scotland is reduced.

The motivation of the stronger clubs in the SFL is the chance to join the SPL gravy train; four games against the SPL teams per season with all the associated television earnings; the SFL did not manage without the SPL!

Christmas has come early to Scottish football in 2012; time for turkeys to vote!

Co-ordinator 02/07/2012 Report this place
The proposal document did not detail where this magical £18 million figure actually comes from. Nor does it give any substance to the statement that corporate sponsors will be lost. David Longmuir has not added any factual information, saying that the SFL clubs have been given the full picture.
Sorry Mr Longmuir, What the SFL clubs have been presented with is a document that provides no factual evidence to explain why from a business point of view it should be accepted.
Unless it can be supported with detailed information, then most clubs and their fans will see it for what it is, an attempt to threaten and scare them into accepting Rangers Newco into Division 1.

gordonthegopher 02/07/2012 Report this place
did Rangers care about any other Scottish clubs when they looking to join the English Premiership?
The current state of Scottish footbally has nothing worth preserving in my opinion. Let Rangers go to the Third Division and take their medicine and we'll see what happens.
There would be too much hostility towards Rangers and their fans if they get away with this. A few seasons in the more humble divisions might teach some of their fans there's more to the game than needing to win all the time. And Gers absence from the SPL might create a more level and competitive top flight.

a Stirling Albion fan 02/07/2012 Report this place
Rangers always stated that they preferred to stay in Scottish football & never actively sought entry into the English league system - so that is more than a little redundant too.

The "magical" £18m figure is based around information provided to the various bodies by commercial partners as to what will be offered with Rangers out of the SPL for atleast 3 years - that's not "magical" that's basic calculation. The market rate for Scottish football will be, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, greatly reduced as the ONLY four games marketable outside Scotland are lost, leading to lost income for the broadcaster, ergo a much lesser offer for the rights. Further to this there is the fact that sponsors could seek compensation from the league due to the fact the product being sponsored is no longer the product agreed - it is a much lesser product than the deal specified.

The only question surrounding the figure is how much of an impact the loss of Rangers will have on gate receipts. Now the supporters have said that allowing Rangers in would lead to boycotts, by voting them out they would come back to the ground - that's a very good idea, but look at the big picture. With the reduction in central revenue (sponsorship, media deals) clubs will be forced to increase ticket prices to cope with that - the question is will supporters be willing to part with more money to watch inferior product for prolonged periods of time. Ultimately the doubt I would have over that is that while you'd see an initial "surge" in attendance, at a time where money is limited, I doubt that "surge" would last any more than half a season, especially as it becomes woefully apparent that clubs are not actually all that good. Come Christmas when the clubs destined for the bottom half of the league do you think Aberdeen/Hibs fans will still be willing to shell out £27 to watch their team play trash football? It doesn't happen now at the last few years ticket prices, so it won't happen long when the prices are increased to reduce the drop in revenue.

"And Gers absence from the SPL might create a more level and competitive top flight."

I'm sorry, but you appear to be someone who has taken leave of your mental faculties, the SPL has not been competitive for a number of years, infact it's only had one minorly competitive year (05/06) the rest of it has been nothing but domination by two clubs. If you look at the cumulative table (528 games played) it features 7 clubs, the gap between Rangers in second & Motherwell in third is 393 points! (or 131 victories) The only club to split that dominance was Hearts, thanks in large part to a brilliant start to the season - even with 10 points deducted from Rangers for entering into administration we were STILL 9 points clear of Motherwell. That's not going to change when clubs who are already burdened with debt are forced to accept reduced turnover - one of the few controllable costs a club has is player salary, common sense will tell you that reducing player salary will reduce the calibre of player at the club. The only club which will not be forced into drastic salary reduction exercise will be Celtic.

bluenoseam 02/07/2012 Report this place
I agree with some of the reasoning from other comments regarding this ethereal or actual 16 million or is it 18 million? which will vanish from the game. Most of that has already been discounted by the SPL vote in their proposed actions. What remains for the SFL must be minimal as the influence could only come from the odd Scottish Cup fixture which might interface a big SPL team with an SFL minnow. Then the revenue would only attach itself to the SFL club. I understand that it is the duty of the executive of the SFL to advise their membership as best they are able but this seems to fly in the face of reality . I would be very upset at this financial burden being overplayed in order to bring the SFL teams to heel on the fear of financial catastrophe, when the actual financial crises which will ensue from the SPL vote will totally rest with the SPL clubs and not the SFL.

Deedledoddle 02/07/2012 Report this place
I agree with some of the reasoning from other comments regarding this ethereal or actual 16 million or is it 18 million? which will vanish from the game. Most of that has already been discounted by the SPL vote in their proposed actions. What remains for the SFL must be minimal as the influence could only come from the odd Scottish Cup fixture which might interface a big SPL team with an SFL minnow. Then the revenue would only attach itself to the SFL club. I understand that it is the duty of the executive of the SFL to advise their membership as best they are able but this seems to fly in the face of reality . I would be very upset at this financial burden being overplayed in order to bring the SFL teams to heel on the fear of financial catastrophe, when the actual financial crises which will ensue from the SPL vote will totally rest with the SPL clubs and not the SFL.

Deedledoddle 02/07/2012 Report this place
Bluenoseam I enjoy your viewpoints and as a septegenarian bluenose I share your pain in this modern day version of torture as death by a thousand cuts. I am totally outraged by the tax authorities who absolutely refuse to be rushed into issuing their final judgement on the wee and big tax cases. We alll know that will be a bloodletting of major proportions. I am totally outraged by the SFA for not providing a revised judgement based upon the successful appeal of the sanctions they previously imposed on Rangers, which could render any conflicts about Rangers and the leagues completely irrelevant. I am completely outraged at the findings of the SFA into the dual payments , EBT nonsense yet to be judged upon, which could eliminate the name, reputation, history and everything from the current scenario. How can anything positive be planned for Rangers when these items continue to hang over the heads of club, fans and public interest. Is Scotland making a new image for itself in dragging their feet on huge influential matters ( I almost wanted to say knuckle dragging) to the point where these major decisions become irrelevant? My interpretation of emergency action differs greatly from that demonstrated by the authorities at large. On the. Other hand I think they realize that if they take the action their consciences should dictate, they live in fear of the aftershock.

Deedledoddle 02/07/2012 Report this place
How can something that doesn't exist be in administration?

levelplayingfield 02/07/2012 Report this place
Can the Scottish football fan please come clean.? The public outrage at Rangers FC oldco, is totally understandable. The public backlash against the boardroom of RFC oldco is likewise understood. But the main issue appears to me to be against the Rangers supporters who have over the years inflicted their venomous sectarian antics on the many towns, cities and countries where they have carried their incomprehensible pseudo religious bigotry to ridiculous lengths in the name of Glasgow Rangers. By comparison, the Tartan Army with none of this stupid baggage is viewed in a more friendly light across other countries. I don't know how we can resolve the club business at RFC newco if there continues to be this persistent acrimonious position of non Rangers fans, with threats of boycotts to their own clubs even in the face of financial ruin. Seems crazy to me. The SFA refuse to recognize this reality and continues to deal (?) with only the business side of things, while the fan situation remains unresolved. I firmly believe the fans past behavior lies behind most of the problems blocking resolution of this matter, which nevertheless still remains a huge issue in itself.

Deedledoddle 02/07/2012 Report this place
If the truth be know, what we are reading is positive proof the total football setup in scotland is a complete shambles.

Sorry Mr. Longmuir, but what you suggest is pure guff written out of desperation. Its clear Scottish football has no real business plan. The losers will be the SPL clubs whose TV games and 2 home games against The EX Rangers FC will be there loss.

The gainers will be the SFL clubs who will enjoy 2 larger than normal home crowds when or if Rangers newco visit. I say if because there is certainly no guarantee Rangers Newco would be voted into the SFL.

However what is more important is Scottish football is missing the one real opportunity to sort itself out once and for all. Why, oh why you all appear to play so much emphasis on 2 clubs is beyond belief. But the way you are handling this simply goes to show non of the football authorities has a clue how to organise and manage the game in Scotland. For once, show some guts and admit you have created a 2 teir SPL that favours the old firm. Now one have of that has gone you are totally lost as to what to do.

Get a grip on yourselves, let the SPL play with 11 teams this year and spend the next 12 month completely overhauling the Scottish football leagues, not to the advantage of just a select few teams but to the benefit of all clubs, senior and junior alike. The balls in your penalty area, just dont expect the SFL to bail out Rangers newco or the SPL.

Overseas Laddie 02/07/2012 Report this place
Ron Scott at The Sunday Post fired the first pro- Rangers salvo at the weekend. Here is a quick summary of the bullet points. All quotes are verbatim.

"As the fans and clubs become hysterical about how the Light Blues should be punished, it's worth remembering the Ibrox club has done nothing unlawful.

The SFA then decided to impose severe sanctions on Rangers after awakening to the fact that Craig Whyte was not a fit and proper person to own the club.Yet the independent Ibrox board set up to look into Whyte while he was still negotiating with Murray decided themselves that [he] wasn't fit and proper to own the club."

They told the SFA that at least fifteen months ago,but the powers-that-be decided in their wisdom to take no action at that time.

It's all very well to bleat on about sporting integrity. But why risk the entire future of Scottish football especially when the facts clearly show Rangers have done nothing wrong.

It is especially wrong when the facts show there is absolutely no need for the authorities to treat Rangers the way they appear hell-bent on doing."
find a victim, preferably someone once powerful and in a weakened state.Repeat a mantra over and over, until it is believed. Sporting integrity, Cheating rangers, special treatment, the club is dead. Once it is believed it is true. Well it's not true and never will be

levelplayingfield 02/07/2012 Report this place
STV: The site which actively permits racism.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Astv.tv+%22plastic+paddy%22

Absolutely disgraceful.

Declan Murphy 03/07/2012 Report this place
STV: The site which actively permits racism.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Astv.tv+%22plastic+paddy%22

Absolutely disgraceful.

Declan Murphy 03/07/2012 Report this place
David Longmuir is part of the cabal which includes Doncaster, Ogilvie & Co., who seek to break the rules they are signed up to uphold by their members.

People understand that the media has a vested interest in trying to pretend that RFC (In Liquidation) didn't go bust.

STV are trying to get the 50,000 RFC (In Liquidation) fans to keep watching Scotsport, Fat Jabba in the DR is trying to get them to keep buying his newspaper, Sky are trying to get them to keep paying their £40 a month.

It's the fan who goes to games who they are trying to shaft, and it is the fans who go to games who are the front-line of resistance against this nonsense.

We know that RFC (In Liquidation) are being liquidated.

We know they don't exist any longer.

Media channels which persist in perpetuating this myth are rapidly losing credit, and the new, social media, has taken its place.

When was the last time you read an article in the MSM which called for the rules to be applied? Why is no-one in the MSM calling for the rules to be applied, and for Scottish football to simply move on?

The reason why, is that they all have a vested interest in trying to dupe us into believing that

a) There is a club called 'Rangers FC' or similar, which doesn't begin with 'Cove' or 'Kilsyth'.
b) Rangers FC didn't go bust
c) Charles Greens/John Browns/Walter Smiths/Paul Murrays new club is actually a now defunct club.

STC want viewing figures, Fat Jabba wants you to buy his dreary ramblings before he runs out of succulent lamb.

Don't believe a word, these people are unlike you or I, they don't care about Scottish football, they simply care about making sure that the veins they are sucking from don't run dry.

Declan Murphy 03/07/2012 Report this place
Well the Lord loves a trier. Have you ever considered that your desperation "apply the rules" is mis-guided? I consider it akin to Shylock's pursuance of his "pound of flesh." It has only one true purpose, Antonio's death and revenge for a personal slight and because Antonio gives away that which Shylock charges interest for. I imagine the Daily Record's article today has you in apoplexy. I have not the foggiest idea whether it is true or not, but I do know that SPL chairmen came out in favour of Ranger's expulsion believing they could survive because Rangers would go into the first division. As it stands Rangers may not even play in the 3rd division. (you can call the company that owns Rangers whatever you like, but the club will be called Rangers.)
Remember that rules are there for a reason but they reflect reason as it stood at the time. Sometimes those rules do not fit. We used to chop hands off thieves, Execute children, deport petty thieves into slave labour. We changed our rules because they were the right thing to do. The death penalty was abolished because the last man to be executed had a learning difficulty and they couldn't bring him back.
There has been so much drivel spouted about sporting integrity as if the anti Rangers lobby has a monopoly on the concept. Well which is the hardest decision? swimming against the tide, standing up to the blood lust of the mob and looking with a cool head at the facts of the case, or giving in to it and scapegoat for all Scottish football's problems?
The point is that all punishments should be commensurate and be suffered by those who did wrong. The fact is that the Newco rule was intended to prevent administration and insolvency events but Rangers was latterly owned, despite warnings to the SFA of Whyte's character, by someone whose main purpose was to take them into administration. You have already stated that the owners of the club are a separate entity from the club itself, well all you seem most interested in is punishing a club. I don't like EBT's, I am a socialist and want much greater distribution of wealth and power, but they are not illegal. Nothing has been proven as yet in any sphere. Where in any of your diatribes is the concept "fair."
It is time to take a long hard look at your own motivation, the thing that is driving the way you think - your own prejudices.
None of this is really about Rangers getting off with something - yes their fans can be arrogant, but try going to a Chelsea match - it is about doing the right thing. The right thing is never punishing people just because you can. It is never about punishing the victim for suffering a crime, not is it about vilifying administrators who see disaster coming and are trying to do something about it. In terms of Scottish football, you may yet get your wish and see Rangers depart, so I will leave you with the words of G.L. Higgins on NHS reform:

The operation was successful, but the patient died. Reflections on health care costs and social support cuts.

levelplayingfield 03/07/2012 Report this place
"you can call the company that owns Rangers whatever you like, but the club will be called Rangers"

There was no 'company which owns Rangers', Rangers was the company.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/clubHistory/article/2495830

"Wilton was rewarded with his appointment as the Club's first Manager as Rangers formally became a business company"

It's quite clear.

Is there anything in the sentence "Rangers formally became a business company" you don't understand?

Declan Murphy 04/07/2012 Report this place

Rangers

SFL chief David Longmuir insists clubs have full picture of Rangers crisis

More About Focus on Rangers

Related articles

People who read this story also read

Comments

There are 22 comments

Report comment

LATEST: SPL play-off plan to be retained if First Division clubs break away

LATEST: Bayern Munich's Champions League final hopes previewed in STV Sports Daily

LATEST: Borussia Dortmund's season so far and their Champions League final chances

LATEST: First Division sides set to apply for SPL as 42-club reconstruction 'fails'

LATEST: League reconstruction plans fail to get SFL support in informal vote

LATEST: Boxer banned for nearly four years after admitting steroid use

LATEST: Scandinavian consortium close to negotiating a price to buy Hearts

LATEST: Scott Boyd signs new deal with Ross County to become longest-serving player

LATEST: Neil Lennon will be in dugout for Scottish Cup final despite ban breach

LATEST: Revealed: The different financial models which will decide reconstruction