Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 It doesnt matter what way davesmith cuts the mustard, it doesnt matter how much the cries of "they ur daein it n aw" echo round govan - the bottom line is, Rangers are about to be liquidated, and any new club rising from the shite left behind, will ALWAYS have that black cloud hanging over them, and insinuations of corruption will ALWAYS follow them. The best thing a New Rangers United can do - is to buy an English club, and move down south. This whole carry on has proved one unavoidable truth... Sottish Football does NOT need a Glasgow Rangers. unfortunately a great many people have thus far managed to avoid that truth. worryingly it includes people who will have a big say in whether or not rangers/the newco are transplanted straight back into the SPL. the levering mechanism in all of this is the television deal. all we hear it talk about the TV deal falling down if rangers aren't part of the league. i wouldn't mind an honest and exhaustive examination of whether or not this mantra is actually cast iron true. even if it is actually true then personally i still say it should not stand in the way of a fair and sporting minded decision being made... TV deal ramifications coming second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) They will put forward their final findings to David Murray to see if it's OK. Nice to see he has had his Knighthood removed Edited March 4, 2012 by wavydavy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) As much as this has been a fun ride...... I now want it to stop. I'm bored of seeing Ally McCoists petted lip. Just shut them down and be done with it. Edited March 4, 2012 by Drylaw Hearts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) unfortunately a great many people have thus far managed to avoid that truth. worryingly it includes people who will have a big say in whether or not rangers/the newco are transplanted straight back into the SPL. the levering mechanism in all of this is the television deal. all we hear it talk about the TV deal falling down if rangers aren't part of the league. i wouldn't mind an honest and exhaustive examination of whether or not this mantra is actually cast iron true. even if it is actually true then personally i still say it should not stand in the way of a fair and sporting minded decision being made... TV deal ramifications coming second. If this is a condition of the TV deal then questions need to asked as to why they agreed a TV deal that could result in the SPL breaking their own rules or manipulating league positions for the deal to remain valid. Either way, I will happily give up the deal if it meant Rangers were punished in the manner they deserve and I do not think the financial impact would be as bad as the media monkeys say it would. Celtic would be negatively impacted the most, but they too would survive Edited March 4, 2012 by Simon Says Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney Rubble Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) I've struggled to understand why Whyte bought the club from Murray in the first place. Could it be that did not appreciate the scale of the alleged wrongdoing till he took over. Under the most recent relevations almost all the shenanigans took place under the previous administration who are notably keeping their head down. He was brought to rangers to see them through bankrutcy then phoenixed into a new rangers minus the debt , but unfortunately for him and rangers HMRC threw a spanner in the works by delaying the EBT verdict which has now left him public enemy no1 with a giant can of worms opened for all to see , there really is a god . Edited March 4, 2012 by Travis_ Bickle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 without specialist knowledge = making things up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 If this is a condition of the TV deal then questions need to asked as to why they agreed a TV deal that could result in the SPL breaking their own rules or manipulating league positions for the deal to remain valid. Either way, I will happily give up the deal if it meant Rangers were punished in the manner they deserve and I do not think the financial impact would be as bad as the media monkeys say it would. Celtic would be negatively impacted the most, but they too would survive indeed. me too. i have long advocated ripping up the TV and going without one anyway. i also think the issue is being employed as a wee shiny to oil the wheels of the bandwagon to let them slither back in to the SPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) unfortunately a great many people have thus far managed to avoid that truth. worryingly it includes people who will have a big say in whether or not rangers/the newco are transplanted straight back into the SPL. the levering mechanism in all of this is the television deal. all we hear it talk about the TV deal falling down if rangers aren't part of the league. i wouldn't mind an honest and exhaustive examination of whether or not this mantra is actually cast iron true. even if it is actually true then personally i still say it should not stand in the way of a fair and sporting minded decision being made... TV deal ramifications coming second. Damn right. I have said it before on other threads and probably on this one, but If clubs a relying on a certain amount of money from the TV deal to stay afloat then the whole league needs to be structured for clubs to rely on money they generate from their "own" support. If this means that clubs like Dunfermline, Hibs, St Mirren and even Hearts drop down a league, then so be it, as they don't deserve to be there. Why do certain clubs think they have a right to be in the SPL? They are surviving on a false economy, which most are. The teams should focus on generating their own youth systems and producing our own players. If they have enough money to bring in higher quality players, then fair enough. But this should be done by increasing the interest of the common punter and raise the attendances, which could easily be resolved by capping the ticket prices. The league should be all about good teams and good managers, not financial mismanagement and chasing rainbows. Scottish football need to learn its place. We are not, and will not be the EPL*. *Which will come tumbling down in a few years anyway. Edited March 4, 2012 by Lovecraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) without specialist knowledge = making things up Edited March 4, 2012 by portobellojambo1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas-voss Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I've struggled to understand why Whyte bought the club from Murray in the first place. Could it be that did not appreciate the scale of the alleged wrongdoing till he took over. Under the most recent relevations almost all the shenanigans took place under the previous administration who are notably keeping their head down. As a side issue whilst the tax payer and football clubs like ourselves are amongst creditors at risk of losing money Lloyds Bank have somehow managed to get their ?18 million back before the bubble burst Why has he bought any of these companies that he has been involved in that have then been liquidated ? It must be a very lucrative market or why get involved with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Damn right. I have said it before on other threads and probably on this one, but If clubs a relying on a certain amount of money from the TV deal to stay afloat then the whole league needs to be structured for clubs to rely on money they generate from their "own" support. If this means that clubs like Dunfermline, Hibs, St Mirren and even Hearts drop down a league, then so be it, as they don't deserve to be there. Why do certain clubs think they have a right to be in the SPL? They are surviving on a false economy, which most are. The teams should focus on generating their own youth systems and producing our own players. If they have enough money to bring in higher quality players, then fair enough. But this should be done by increasing the interest of the common punter and raise the attendances, which could easily be resolved by capping the ticket prices. The league should be all about good teams and good managers, not financial mismanagement and chasing rainbows. Scottish football need to learn its place. We are not, and will not be the EPL*. *Which will come tumbling down in a few years anyway. absolutely spot on. the structure is built on quicksand. only reverting back to a financial structure based on generating your own income can suffice. any outside income derived from television rights and so forth should always be 'bonus' income and not relied upon to the extent that is has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Why has he bought any of these companies that he has been involved in that have then been liquidated ? It must be a very lucrative market or why get involved with them. By a 12" pepperoni pizza for a pound, sell the slices with the meat on it for 75p each, and then chuck the shitty tomato and cheese bits that are left in the bin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 absolutely spot on. the structure is built on quicksand. only reverting back to a financial structure based on generating your own income can suffice. any outside income derived from television rights and so forth should always be 'bonus' income and not relied upon to the extent that is has been. I don't see how they can't understand this. Seriously. If clubs were bringing through their own players and were financially sound; not making tons of money, but able to meet the bills and pay the players, then they wouldn't have to sell of these players they were bringing through for buttons, and could get decent fees for them. This would then add to the financial health of the club, and would allow them to continue to develop the youth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) If this is a condition of the TV deal then questions need to asked as to why they agreed a TV deal that could result in the SPL breaking their own rules or manipulating league positions for the deal to remain valid. Either way, I will happily give up the deal if it meant Rangers were punished in the manner they deserve and I do not think the financial impact would be as bad as the media monkeys say it would. Celtic would be negatively impacted the most, but they too would survive If this is/was a condition of the deal what were they planning to do if one half of the OF had finished in the top 6 and the other in the bottom 6, would the actual manner in which the league operates have been changed at that point. It is totally crazy to think that such a TV deal could be agreed, unless those doing the agreeing were intent on ensuring 4 OF matches could be played each league season. If the TV deal is lost as a result of Ranger going down the shitter the other clubs will just have to live with it (and in most instances actually thrive through an increase in paying customers). EDIT - To self, put your specs on before you start posting, and that way you would have realised your first paragraph is repeating something that was already said in the post you are quoting you baldy half blind tit (this is said on the assumption you cannot be banned from JKB for personal abuse aimed at yourself). Edited March 4, 2012 by portobellojambo1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bickfest Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 David Murray presents Craig Whyte to the Rangers Board Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 If this is/was a condition of the deal what were they planning to do if one half of the OF had finished in the top 6 and the other in the bottom 6, would the actual manner in which the league operates have been changed at that point. It is totally crazy to think that such a TV deal could be agreed, unless those doing the agreeing were intent on ensuring 4 OF matches could be played each league season. If the TV deal is lost as a result of Ranger going down the shitter the other clubs will just have to live with it (and in most instances actually thrive through an increase in paying customers). EDIT - To self, put your specs on before you start posting, and that way you would have realised your first paragraph is repeating something that was already said in the post you are quoting you baldy half blind tit (this is said on the assumption you cannot be banned from JKB for personal abuse aimed at yourself). Surely there must be some legal issues in this? The SPL can guarantee SKY that there will be 4 OF games, including the split? GUARANTEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) If you halved the current TV money and distributed it evenly, no-one but Celtic would notice much difference. Maybe some journalist could try to find out what the TV deal actually is and what the "market" impact of losing Rangers would be - comparison with the TV deals for other comparable leagues would be interesting. Much easier of course justto repeat the mantra that the TV deal would be torn up. Edited March 4, 2012 by Francis Albert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Lyon Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Would the TV company owing the rights to screen Scottish football want to support a club that has systematically lied, defrauded the country and behaved immorally. Oh I forgot who owns the TV rights - it would be just up their street. Edited March 4, 2012 by Stuart Lyon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) If you halved the current TV money and distributed it evenly, no-one but Celtic would notice much difference. Maybe some journalist could try to find out what the TV deal actually is and what the "market" impact of losing Rangers would be - comparison with the TV deals for other comparable leagues would be interesting. Much easier of course justto repeat the mantra that the TV deal would be torn up. I heard on Sportsound that the difference between the OF and the "rest" was about 300k a year. Traynor mentioned it straight after saying that the 80k Dunfermline were due was a lot of money to them to force home a shitty point he had about clubs needing Rangers, and in the next breath the TV money was mentioned, and he said that the difference between the TV money that the OF get and the rest get isn't that much when trying to defend the fact that they do actually get more than everyone else. Clown Edited March 4, 2012 by Lovecraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 major question need to be asked and clarified 1. How can the TV deal insist on 4 OF games a year when only 3 are guaranteed, what would happen if one team say had all their points deducted for wrong doing and failed to get into the top 6, how would the league accomodate that to meet the TV demands. 2. If the Hugh Adams report is correct. and the SFA were implicit in some sort of cover up: Then I want every penny of my season ticket money returned for the last 20 years. Yes i know there are no guarantees for success and you buy a ticket based on just faith. But if what has beed sugested is true then how many times have fans of all clubs been denied that little bit of success like Euro qulaification, cup wins etc. WE were unable to qualify for europe after been cheated in the davisgate scandal. it turns out were might have been cheated twice now by illegaly registered players? and 2 cup finals and a semi. The whole system need a reboot and that cant happen while the governing bodies are doing their own investigation, It needs one from the courts and somebody in authority should call for a full public inquiry into the running of our game and how one of its biggest clubs was allowed not only to go to the wall but how it was allowed to act with impunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 major question need to be asked and clarified 1. How can the TV deal insist on 4 OF games a year when only 3 are guaranteed, what would happen if one team say had all their points deducted for wrong doing and failed to get into the top 6, how would the league accomodate that to meet the TV demands. 2. If the Hugh Adams report is correct. and the SFA were implicit in some sort of cover up: Then I want every penny of my season ticket money returned for the last 20 years. Yes i know there are no guarantees for success and you buy a ticket based on just faith. But if what has beed sugested is true then how many times have fans of all clubs been denied that little bit of success like Euro qulaification, cup wins etc. WE were unable to qualify for europe after been cheated in the davisgate scandal. it turns out were might have been cheated twice now by illegaly registered players? and 2 cup finals and a semi. The whole system need a reboot and that cant happen while the governing bodies are doing their own investigation, It needs one from the courts and somebody in authority should call for a full public inquiry into the running of our game and how one of its biggest clubs was allowed not only to go to the wall but how it was allowed to act with impunity. been saying the same for ages. the whole system needs burned to the ground and it doesn't matter how painful it is, or indeed who's arse ends up falling down the toilet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 been saying the same for ages. the whole system needs burned to the ground and it doesn't matter how painful it is, or indeed who's arse ends up falling down the toilet. The problem is they won't start something that will cost their own jobs. That's why administrators are brought in to failing companies. TEE HEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I'm sure I read (maybe on here) that during 05/06 Hearts matches on the TV consistently drew higher viewing figures than Rangers/Celtic outwith the OF game. Surely this proves that if another team is successful it will generate interest throughout the UK. It may mean a couple of years with less money initially but if ourselves, Motherwell, Dundee Utd or Aberdeen can put ourselves in a position to challenge interest in the Scottish game would increase and put us in a better position in negotiations? The reason the TV deals are getting shitter and shitter is because there is no interest outside Scotland for the status quo. It's been proven with the financial position Scottish clubs find themselves in now that we don't need a strong Rangers/Celtic to thrive, we need everyone else to have the opportunity to make themselves stronger and I can't envisage that happening with Rangers in the league.. Im away to get myself some tap shoes so I'll look the part when I dance on their grave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The problem is they won't start something that will cost their own jobs. That's why administrators are brought in to failing companies. TEE HEE people outside scotland must look at our pishy wee set-up and scratch their heads that there are three different organisations involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagar the Horrible Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 And another thing, IF what has been said is true about dual contracts etc then: All agents who have had dealing with Rangers players over the last 20 years should be made to come clean. all given the chance to whistleblow on the whole sticking sorry state and by doing so be able to keep their licence. Failure to divulge before hand and somehow the allegations turn out to be true, then those agents who knew about this should not only return their fees but loose their licence. Gordon Smith was an agent, has anybody asked his views on this to see if he knew of any other agents having performed this so called practice, as he did go on to run the SFA and as such has a geater insight into the inner sanctum of the game. Because if anybody in the SFA on their watch failed to act on this knowledge it would be disturbing, I would like Gordon asked his views because he might have an insight into how football operates at all levels, being the only person to have been an Agent, a football pundit, the Head of the SFA and director of football at a club where the management of it has been; how to put it "defiant to the laws of the land" He has a unique insight into all levels, So Gordon whats your views? can you shed any light on if these allegations are true or just some random jouros having a fly kick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 people outside scotland must look at our pishy wee set-up and scratch their heads that there are three different organisations involved. It's mental. The clubs need to enforce the change though as there is no way either the SPL or SFL will volunteer to shut up shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 people outside scotland must look at our pishy wee set-up and scratch their heads that there are three different organisations involved. It's not any different in England though. EPL/FA and SKY Same problems, bigger budgets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 It's mental. The clubs need to enforce the change though as there is no way either the SPL or SFL will volunteer to shut up shop. someone certainly needs to force it. i wonder if there's any chance of some kind of commission, possibly run by some ex high ranking politician to look into every aspect of the game wi.... naw forget it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 someone certainly needs to force it. i wonder if there's any chance of some kind of commission, possibly run by some ex high ranking politician to look into every aspect of the game wi.... naw forget it. Just give him a decent expense account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 It's not any different in England though. EPL/FA and SKY Same problems, bigger budgets. their game is certainly dictated to by the TV broadcasters but at least they get something meaningful in the bargain. TV can run scottish football if it likes, as long as it stumps up some worthwhile cash. allowing TV to dictate scottish football, when the clubs are getting the kind of money involved, is... well... typical of scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Just give him a decent expense account. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syndicalist Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 I heard on Sportsound that the difference between the OF and the "rest" was about 300k a year. Traynor mentioned it straight after saying that the 80k Dunfermline were due was a lot of money to them to force home a shitty point he had about clubs needing Rangers, and in the next breath the TV money was mentioned, and he said that the difference between the TV money that the OF get and the rest get isn't that much when trying to defend the fact that they do actually get more than everyone else. Clown What they never mention is how much Celtic and Rangers get for their home SPL games that are not against each other. Do they sell these rights overseas? How much do they get for them? Why aren't they in the package of SPL games that are sold for the general good of the SPL? Anyone know the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovecraft Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) What they never mention is how much Celtic and Rangers get for their home SPL games that are not against each other. Do they sell these rights overseas? How much do they get for them? Why aren't they in the package of SPL games that are sold for the general good of the SPL? Anyone know the answer. I can't imagine so. They could maybe sell off the games that are not scheduled to be on either Sky or ESPN, but I don't think they can sell the games twice. I think they were pushing for being able to sell their own games like Real Madrid etc do, but I think that's when they were given a bigger slice of the shit pie. Edited March 4, 2012 by Lovecraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wavydavy Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) I read today that Duff & Phelps were at court on Friday trying to secure some of the monies hived off at Whyte's lawyers and the report said that they won their case however they are still trying to trace where some of the money is and they can only find ?3.6 million and three other intersted parties have staked a claim on the money. It would also appear that Whyte had installed one of his lawyers in some sort of position within Rangers FC, the plot thickens. Edited March 4, 2012 by wavydavy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackJAC? Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) their game is certainly dictated to by the TV broadcasters but at least they get something meaningful in the bargain. TV can run scottish football if it likes, as long as it stumps up some worthwhile cash. allowing TV to dictate scottish football, when the clubs are getting the kind of money involved, is... well... typical of scottish football. Why would any TV company dump a large amount of money into Scottish Football? Before SKY appeared, English football still had global appeal, where this has never been the case North of the border. Other than the OF, who actually gives a shit about the Scottish game out with our country? It's no more marketable to a global audience than say, the Belgian, Austrian and Danish leagues. Which leagues would you prefer being pumped into your house the Spanish and English leagues or the Danish and Belgian leagues? I suspect most people on the continent don't give a jot about our league, so it makes no sense for Sky or any other TV provider to pay over the odds for a product that won't sell. If it wasn't for Hearts, i wouldn't even watch Scottish football and I'm Scottish. Edited March 4, 2012 by BlackJAC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 What they never mention is how much Celtic and Rangers get for their home SPL games that are not against each other. Do they sell these rights overseas? How much do they get for them? Why aren't they in the package of SPL games that are sold for the general good of the SPL? Anyone know the answer. No idea how much they get, but in the US most Old Firm games are broadcast via some sort of closed circuit channel which is designed for pubs to subscribe to. That said, yesterday's game didn't seem to be on, for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Why would any TV company dump a large amount of money into Scottish Football? Before SKY appeared, English football still had global appeal, where this has never been the case North of the border. Other than the OF, who actually gives a shit about the Scottish game out with our country? It's no more marketable to a global audience than say, the Belgian, Austrian and Danish leagues. Which leagues would you prefer being pumped into your house the Spanish and English leagues or the Danish and Belgian leagues? I suspect most people on the continent don't give a jot about our league, so it makes no sense for Sky or any other TV provider to pay over the odds for a product that won't sell. If it wasn't for Hearts, i wouldn't even watch Scottish football and I'm Scottish. Spot on. Anyone who thinks that there would be a wide, international audience for an OF-less SPL, for example, is deluded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin_T Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Spot on. Anyone who thinks that there would be a wide, international audience for an OF-less SPL, for example, is deluded. Whilst agreeing with this, the current TV deal only gives clubs out-with the Old Firm the equivalent of an extra 1,000 per game on their average attendance. Shouldn't be too difficult to achieve in a more competitive league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Spot on. Anyone who thinks that there would be a wide, international audience for an OF-less SPL, for example, is deluded. I doubt anyone thinks that but what we have to do is increase interest down south for us to be in a stronger position to negotiate a new TV deal. That will never happen if things continue as they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davesmith Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The TV thing is a load of crap. People determined for there to be a conspiracy. Sky will expect 4 games a season and inevitably whilst Rangers and Celtic are in the league will get it. If Rangers are thrown out then Sky will get out of this deal at the first opportunity and any offer we get from them will be half the value. Chairmen are not going to throw them out if they get a choice in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1874M Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 (edited) Why do we need anyone outside Scotland to give a shit. I don't give a shit about other nations leagues and other nations have some decent national sides, Denmark, Sweden, Poland etc. Kids arent going to stop wanting to play for the national side because there is a one horse race in Scotland (that wouldnt last for long imo) and I'm Pretty sure dunfermline and hubs were financially better off in the 1st division without the tv money. Edited March 4, 2012 by K1874M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Whilst the party yesterday has left me in bits, I'll quite happily never do that again should der hun go to der wall. The LIQUIDATION party will make Caligula's most lavish bash look like a 1940s tea dance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The TV thing is a load of crap. People determined for there to be a conspiracy. Sky will expect 4 games a season and inevitably whilst Rangers and Celtic are in the league will get it. If Rangers are thrown out then Sky will get out of this deal at the first opportunity and any offer we get from them will be half the value. Chairmen are not going to throw them out if they get a choice in it. good. great in fact. no rangers and still some TV cash coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Whilst agreeing with this, the current TV deal only gives clubs out-with the Old Firm the equivalent of an extra 1,000 per game on their average attendance. Shouldn't be too difficult to achieve in a more competitive league. Perhaps. Perhaps not. What effect do the homes games vs. the OF have on average attendances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I.J Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 good. great in fact. no rangers and still some TV cash coming in. Quite literally a no-lose scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Quite literally a no-lose scenario. quite. a bit like losing a fiver and then finding a tenner. then someone handing you back your fiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 The TV thing is a load of crap. People determined for there to be a conspiracy. Sky will expect 4 games a season and inevitably whilst Rangers and Celtic are in the league will get it. If Rangers are thrown out then Sky will get out of this deal at the first opportunity and any offer we get from them will be half the value. Chairmen are not going to throw them out if they get a choice in it. I'd agree with this. And it's why it's imperative, in my mind, that the SPL/SFA take consistent and appropriate action if Rangers are found to have done anything wrong or cannot fill obligations others have to meet, regardless of what the other chairmen want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Regarding the TV money /companies it may soon be irrelevent because of the publandlord/gate If you can watch the game without subscribing to sky why would pubs pay for the games, as I believe that some pubs are already doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 What they never mention is how much Celtic and Rangers get for their home SPL games that are not against each other. Do they sell these rights overseas? How much do they get for them? Why aren't they in the package of SPL games that are sold for the general good of the SPL? Anyone know the answer. I thought the lack of home old firm games was simply to keep crowds up. Meaning less old firm fans bothering to go away as nearly all their games are on the telly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peebo Posted March 4, 2012 Share Posted March 4, 2012 Regarding the TV money /companies it may soon be irrelevent because of the publandlord/gate If you can watch the game without subscribing to sky why would pubs pay for the games, as I believe that some pubs are already doing so. A deal of some sort with someone somewhere has to be in place for them to have something to show. Whether it's with Sky, Polesat or Al Jazeera etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts