Spl New Tv Deal With Sky/espn

[V for Vendetta]

Does no one remember when we left sky to start our very own spl tv. Look where that got us! We eventually had to take a cheap deal from the bbc and then setanta which went bust. With sky and espn at least we have the added security that they wont go bust and it's slightly more much needed money in the coffers.

 

Although the fact that the bigot brothers run off with most of the money and the ko times being at stupid o'clock but at least we're not going back to the 1805 ko's on a sunday night

 

No one is advocating a return to the SPL's stupid half hearted decisions to aim for SPL TV then take a punt on a big deal from Setanta. But those stupid decisions don't really make this one any better.

 

Happy for ESPN or SKY or both to get the deal but I think it is still undervalued. They had us by the balls after the Setanta thing and squeezed a VERY low price out of the SPL at that point and for 5 years too. Now basically they are still squeezing us for that mistake and again 5 years is a long deal to sign up to when it is undervaluing the product.

 

To top all this they don't even have the nous to announce the financials along with a few small changes that the fans would really appreciate such as better kick off times, proper distribution of the money and an end to the system that only sees OF away games covered thus impacting all the other clubs financially.

 

Basically the SPL management and the Chairman of the clubs prove once again they don't give a flying fuck about what the fans want or about whats best for the clubs collectively.

 

I think it's probably a good thing in the short term - clubs know that there is at least football cash coming in for another 5 years... My question is whether AFC might speculate to accumulate knowing that this money is coming in ? I'm not saying go on a total spunkfest but if you apportion 2 years worth of TV money that goes to the transfer funds into one season's budget to build a stronger team then you might be better placed in the longer term.

 

The current systems don't seem to be working, maybe taking a few calculated risks might be in order ?

 

I've said for a long time that the concept of having a set budget every year is part of the problem at Afc. Teams are built and developed in cycles.

 

We should acknowledge when the team is fcked and needs rebuilt and invest significantly more at that point to bring new players in and sign up the good ones on longer deals, take the hit financially of the weaker players contracts being run down - its the only way to sort out the team.

 

Then once things are working well and we have a strong squad in a year or 2, you balance the books by selling selectively bringing in a cash boost and also reducing the wage budget.

 

Clealry our club doesn't see a problem with the current carve up, which is my concern.

 

Pathetic isn't it. They are all like lambs to the slaughter.

 

Its almost as if they want to be shafted up the arse by the OF.

[vanderark14]

No one is advocating a return to the SPL's stupid half hearted decisions to aim for SPL TV then take a punt on a big deal from Setanta. But those stupid decisions don't really make this one any better.

 

Happy for ESPN or SKY or both to get the deal but I think it is still undervalued. They had us by the balls after the Setanta thing and squeezed a VERY low price out of the SPL at that point and for 5 years too. Now basically they are still squeezing us for that mistake and again 5 years is a long deal to sign up to when it is undervaluing the product.

 

To top all this they don't even have the nous to announce the financials along with a few small changes that the fans would really appreciate such as better kick off times, proper distribution of the money and an end to the system that only sees OF away games covered thus impacting all the other clubs financially.

 

Basically the SPL management and the Chairman of the clubs prove once again they don't give a flying fuck about what the fans want or about whats best for the clubs collectively.

 

 

 

I've said for a long time that the concept of having a set budget every year is part of the problem at Afc. Teams are built and developed in cycles.

 

We should acknowledge when the team is fcked and needs rebuilt and invest significantly more at that point to bring new players in and sign up the good ones on longer deals, take the hit financially of the weaker players contracts being run down - its the only way to sort out the team.

 

Then once things are working well and we have a strong squad in a year or 2, you balance the books by selling selectively bringing in a cash boost and also reducing the wage budget.

 

 

 

Pathetic isn't it. They are all like lambs to the slaughter.

 

Its almost as if they want to be shafted up the arse by the OF.

 

good post V

 

I have been reading a few forums this morning and its surprises me how many people are happy with this. After all Doncaster yapping over the last year about change for the better, we get this - the status quo.

 

we needed huge change and fast and we've now got another five years of the same.

 

they thought they had problems now, just wait till the crowds go further and further downward and lets see these chairmen tell us their

[RTYD]

good post V

 

I have been reading a few forums this morning and its surprises me how many people are happy with this. After all Doncaster yapping over the last year about change for the better, we get this - the status quo.

 

we needed huge change and fast and we've now got another five years of the same.

 

they thought they had problems now, just wait till the crowds go further and further downward and lets see these chairmen tell us their

[RTYD]

how, pray tell me, is this confirmation nothings gonna change?

 

could we not have told SKY of radical changes in the pipeline and thats why they bettered the existing deal even though the product is getting worse?

 

 

You don't believe that pony do you?

[Henry]

The SPL's chief executive, Neil Doncaster, stressed that a bigger division is not financially viable. "There is no room to manoeuvre in terms of expanding. Fourteen teams might potentially work in terms of having a split league and retaining four Old firm games. Maybe. That would be feasible.

 

From the Guardian.

 

That'll be an admission that's it impossible for Rangers or Celtic to finish in the bottom 6 then.

 

Or indeed face punishment from the SPL for not paying taxes.

[vanderark14]

how, pray tell me, is this confirmation nothings gonna change?

 

could we not have told SKY of radical changes in the pipeline and thats why they bettered the existing deal even though the product is getting worse?

 

the deal will be to have 4 OF matches per season. Sky will want the status quo as this is what generates them the most amount of money.

 

the share of the money is the same as the voting structure is still got to be an 11-1 majority for anything to change. This also means that all games show will be the OF away from home except the OF fixture itself with the odd Edinburgh derby and other token game thrown in.

 

the deal means we will be

[RTYD]

why is it so unthinkable?

 

It's not unthinkable, it just hasn't happened.

 

 

 

No rule changes, same division of cash.

[vanderark14]

is it not 200k more?

 

anyway, guess the argument for all old firm away games being on telly, is that there will be 10x the viewing figures there would have been from any other game?

 

I wouldn't dispute that right now.

 

football should not ever be about viewing figures, its this attitude thats got us where we are right now

[dj_bollocks]

This infers that the offer back in 2008 from Sky was 120 million quid over 4 years.... Makes that 65 million look like chump...

 

John Reid being a moaning cunt

[vanderark14]

thing is, we'd demand more of our games on and hamilton would demand more of their games on and theyd be right to

 

but in reality, why should sky screen motherwell vs hamilton, pulling in maybe 6000 viewing fans at most, when whoever the old firm are playing would bring in 60000 at least?

 

edited my post MT

[vanderark14]

mate thats the way world football is

 

were struggling to keep up as it is

 

I know how football is and its why it needs to change.

 

If we keep agreeing to deals like this then us along with the other 10 will be even further behind.

[Dandyesque]

I suppose the upside of this is that Milne will have to sack Brown to have a half decent excuse for reducing the wage budget again?

 

[Dynamo]

Agree, which begs the question why OF home games are seldom shown bar the end of season run in.

 

 

There are 10 other clubs in the negotiations for this and they should be pushing for OF home games to be shown instead of EVERY away game. End of the day, it's up to them.

 

Doesn't matter if the viewing figures would be down say a St Mirren - Hibs game. The clubs can force something like that through.

 

They have no balls though.

[actonsheep]

how, pray tell me, is this confirmation nothings gonna change?

 

could we not have told SKY of radical changes in the pipeline and thats why they bettered the existing deal even though the product is getting worse?

 

The reason Sky have bettered the deal is they have a GUARANTEE of 4 OF matches a season from the SPL, which didn't exist before.

 

I'd like to know how the SPL can make that kind of guarantee but there you go. If an old firm team finishes in the bottom 6 the SPL is in breach of contract. They've taken a deal which is entirely incompatible with any reasonable sporting sensibility, so its only fair that the pay a bit extra.

 

The SPL has taken the cash to become the WWF of European Football. Its just terribly sad.

[spamspamspam]

TBH we're lucky we got 80m

 

No competition for the rights so no battle of the bids. Dumbest thing the SPL did was write off the SPL TV idea. Not saying they should've went with it, just postured a bit to get more filthy from Sky.

 

Mind you I'm sure SPL TV would work. Works extremely well in Holland for the extra 10 euro a month on your TV package. They are also a pretty small country with substandard football being played by most their top flight teams. They have 3 channels dedicated to the Dutch Prem that have programs on every day showing highlights, interviews etc and the set up for the weekend. The channel then sells rights to other Dutch channels for certain games and makes more money that way.

 

Biggest problem though for this here is the BBC. It may be Sky/ESPN thats doing the broadcasting but its BBC cameras, camera men and pictures we see. Sky gets a deal from them because sky takes all the pictures from all over England as well but we'd only be looking for 6 grounds a week to be covered so the price would probably have been a lot higher for the pictures.

 

The other thing the SPL doesnt do that every other league in Europe does regularly is sell live games to be broadcast abroad. I think Setanta in Auz still shows a couple of games but the Dutch have 3-4 games live a week in Spain, Portugal, Italy etc by playing on the Feynoord and Ajax names, if the old firm think they're that popular then the SPL should be doing the same using those clubs. The usual pish excuses about no one being interested etc are always rolled out but if the SPL targeted countries that the old firm had players from then it would slowly build a following. Everyone my age had an Italian team because of C4 coverage and they werent all AC or Juve fans either. The league needs to promote itself a lot better both inside and outside Scotland, if it means giving the Polish, Spanish, German etc TV channels a few free games next season to drum up a wee bit of interest then what do they have to lose?

[Dandyesque]

The reason Sky have bettered the deal is they have a GUARANTEE of 4 OF matches a season from the SPL, which didn't exist before.

 

I'd like to know how the SPL can make that kind of guarantee but there you go. If an old firm team finishes in the bottom 6 the SPL is in breach of contract. They've taken a deal which is entirely incompatible with any reasonable sporting sensibility, so its only fair that the pay a bit extra.

 

The SPL has taken the cash to become the WWF of European Football. Its just terribly sad.

 

It's not just terribly sad - it's either terribly stupid or terribly devious.

 

If what you have said is true, the SPL are taking a massive risk on der hun's court case. If they are forced to boot them out of the SPL, the TV deal goes out the window (it may be SKY/ESPN have insisted on this) - in which case, terribly stupid.

 

OR, it gives them an excuse NOT to boot out der hun - in which case very devious.

 

Isn't it terribly sad that this is how reasonable people view the future of our national game?

[Foster14]

Am I reading this thread right?

 

As part of this TV deal, the SPL is contractually obliged to provide Sky/ESPN (well Sky really) 4 Old Firm matches a season? In writing?

[dj_bollocks]

Until Scottish football is a force to be reckoned with Spam, there's very little chance of getting a bigger presence abroad - I think that window closed over 10 years ago... And to be honest the only games any foreign broadcaster is going to want to take is the OF games...

[actonsheep]

Am I reading this thread right?

 

As part of this TV deal, the SPL is contractually obliged to provide Sky/ESPN (well Sky really) 4 Old Firm matches a season? In writing?

 

Yeah, however, it turns out its now new. And was in place for the last few contracts too.

 

From the horses (arse) mouth...

""One of the conditions is that Celtic and Rangers remain part of the league and it's also a condition that they play each other four times a season.

 

"That's been with us for the entirety of the Sky deal and before with Setanta."

 

Cunts.

[bonzodaddy73]

So if one of the OF got relegated in the first year of the deal(unlikely I know) Sky could then pull the plug on the remainder of the deal?

[beer gut]

So if one of the OF got relegated in the first year of the deal(unlikely I know) Sky could then pull the plug on the remainder of the deal?

 

How can the SPL agree to a scenario that they have absolutely no control over? It basically makes the OF immune to relegation for 5 years. If it is a clause then it beggars belief and cannot be legal surely?

 

It also seems to me that sky/espn/SPL and the OF are setting it up so Rangers don't get hammered if they lose the court case. They will use the TV deal as a bargaining tool to threaten the SPL clubs.

 

AFC and the other clubs need to get a hold of the full agreement and have lawyers scrutinise because it seems to be biased toward the OF....again.

[Redstar]

How can the SPL agree to a scenario that they have absolutely no control over? It basically makes the OF immune to relegation for 5 years. If it is a clause then it beggars belief and cannot be legal surely?

 

It also seems to me that sky/espn/SPL and the OF are setting it up so Rangers don't get hammered if they lose the court case. They will use the TV deal as a bargaining tool to threaten the SPL clubs.

 

AFC and the other clubs need to get a hold of the full agreement and have lawyers scrutinise because it seems to be biased toward the OF....again.

 

There will be fu*k all chance of that happening....I'm not quite sure what all this greeting about getting stiffed by Sky and ESPN is about ?

 

The TV money will come in handy when the the gate receipts hit circa 7K on a regular basis.........Thanks for that Craig

[beer gut]

There will be fu*k all chance of that happening....I'm not quite sure what all this greeting about getting stiffed by Sky and ESPN is about ?

 

The TV money will come in handy when the the gate receipts hit circa 7K on a regular basis.........Thanks for that Craig

 

It's the GUARANTEE of 4 OF matches a season from the SPL that worries me. Even if it is extremely unlikely in normal circumstances that the OF would be relegated it is still possible and no guarantee should be given. Especially with the huns court case on going. The SPL are saying the Huns will not be relegated no matter what the outcome of the case. Do you think they would ever guarantee 4 AFC v Dundee Utd or St Johnstone v St Mirren games? Absolutely no fucking way and the same should be said for the OF.

[V for Vendetta]

It's the GUARANTEE of 4 OF matches a season from the SPL that worries me. Even if it is extremely unlikely in normal circumstances that the OF would be relegated it is still possible and no guarantee should be given. Especially with the huns court case on going. The SPL are saying the Huns will not be relegated no matter what the outcome of the case. Do you think they would ever guarantee 4 AFC v Dundee Utd or St Johnstone v St Mirren games? Absolutely no fucking way and the same should be said for the OF.

 

I can propose a simple solution.

 

"SPL" with 10 teams. Or why not more actually....

 

and a special "OFPL" with just 2 teams playing each other 4 times to meet Sky's needs.

 

I mean thats all they need right? Everything else is irrelevant.

[Dandyesque]

I can propose a simple solution.

 

"SPL" with 10 teams. Or why not more actually....

 

and a special "OFPL" with just 2 teams playing each other 4 times to meet Sky's needs.

 

I mean thats all they need right? Everything else is irrelevant.

 

Either that or we use the "warmed balls" to make sure they get paired in the early rounds of both cups....

[StevieT1986]

My point was that we flocked ourselves up when we originally left sky but who else is out there with big money? Setanta was but they went bust. Although the voting system and tv distribution is wrong but thats a different debate as scottish football is rotten to the core

[V for Vendetta]

My point was that we flocked ourselves up when we originally left sky but who else is out there with big money? Setanta was but they went bust. Although the voting system and tv distribution is wrong but thats a different debate as scottish football is rotten to the core

 

Yes but these things ARE related and if the Neil Doncaster's of this world gave a shit or was even passably competent at his job he would be working to a achieve a few improvements for the clubs and fans as part of the renewal. Instead we have a complete status quo with the current garbage set up and not really a significant realisation of the true value of the product.

[vanderark14]

 

[K-9]

Yet at least 11/12 clubs will have voted yes to this deal. In fact probably all 12 voted yes.

[V for Vendetta]

Yet at least 11/12 clubs will have voted yes to this deal. In fact probably all 12 voted yes.

 

Do they need an 11 club majority for TV deal? I seem to recall different majorities needed for different types of decision.

 

Anyway - I reckon you are spot on with the second statement.

 

Too many of our club chairman are focused purely on bare survival. Not one of them seems to have any vision or any balls.