Marooned In Oz Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Now, we give them stick when they make an erse of things, but when they do something right let's give them a bit of credit eh? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8085447.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Mywords Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Remember 80% of the sum is due to be paid to the **** sisters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Now, we give them stick when they make an erse of things, but when they do something right let's give them a bit of credit eh? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8085447.stm Mmm - yes and no. The SPL is simply an affiliation of the twelve clubs that play in that league. As such they are deciding to pay themselves. I'm a bit staggered that they have ?3,000,000 in SPL funds to pay out. Surely this must spell the end of Setanta. No-one in their right mind is going to take out a new subscription or renew an existing subscription with a company that cannot honour its existing contracts. Bad news for STV too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltonjambo Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Eh? ... nope!!! Sorry but this was the same SFA who actually made the deal with Setanta which has now gone flat ... they could and should have made a much more secure (albeit slightly financially less well off) deal with Sky ... when they were actually warned about Setanta's instability at the time of making the deal ... once more they didn't listen and ploughed their own furrow. Oh and yes ... hindsight is a wonderful thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piltonjambo Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Oops and so is accuracy ... I meant SPL:10900: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john brownlee Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Now, we give them stick when they make an erse of things, but when they do something right let's give them a bit of credit eh? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8085447.stm find out how its gets divvedup before you heap praise on the chalatons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambojim52 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Remember 80% of the sum is due to be paid to the **** sisters. You are right. If Rangers weren't in such deep ***** they wouldn't have done it. The OF grab most of the cash and it's only because of this that they are in such a rush to pay out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Now, we give them stick when they make an erse of things, but when they do something right let's give them a bit of credit eh? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8085447.stm Credit for what ? paying themselves ?3m out of money that was theirs anyway ? Also if they have got that much money left at the end of the season should it not have went to the clubs anyway ? I am not going to pat someone on the back for taking ?3m out of their left pocket and putting it in their right pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Eh? ... nope!!! Sorry but this was the same SFA who actually made the deal with Setanta which has now gone flat ... they could and should have made a much more secure (albeit slightly financially less well off) deal with Sky ... when they were actually warned about Setanta's instability at the time of making the deal ... once more they didn't listen and ploughed their own furrow. Oh and yes ... hindsight is a wonderful thing I thought the clubs voted on this and the old firm and aberdeen were the only ones who wanted to go with sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_jambo Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I thought the clubs voted on this and the old firm and aberdeen were the only ones who wanted to go with sky Why would the Old Firm want to go with Sky, Setanta are in the Old Firms back pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor.Arturo Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Mmm - yes and no. The SPL is simply an affiliation of the twelve clubs that play in that league. As such they are deciding to pay themselves. I'm a bit staggered that they have ?3,000,000 in SPL funds to pay out. Surely this must spell the end of Setanta. No-one in their right mind is going to take out a new subscription or renew an existing subscription with a company that cannot honour its existing contracts. Bad news for STV too. I'm not, Hearts must have paid that in fines alone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I'm not, Hearts must have paid that in fines alone! But mainly to the SFA - not the SPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Why would the Old Firm want to go with Sky, Setanta are in the Old Firms back pocket. the old firm and aberdeen thought the sky deal was the best option. less money but more secure with a bigger viewing audience. we voted for setanta so we can't blame the SPL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Bill Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 We should get Setanta to build the trams. Buffalo Bill . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaing Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Mmm - yes and no. The SPL is simply an affiliation of the twelve clubs that play in that league. As such they are deciding to pay themselves. I'm a bit staggered that they have ?3,000,000 in SPL funds to pay out. Surely this must spell the end of Setanta. No-one in their right mind is going to take out a new subscription or renew an existing subscription with a company that cannot honour its existing contracts. Bad news for STV too. sponsored by David Murray obviously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GhostHunter Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 ESPN looking to buy Setanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 ESPN looking to buy Setanta. Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Link? Surely not this? http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/spl/2009/06/06/exclusive-espn-in-frame-to-take-over-setanta-s-spl-tv-deal-86908-21418921/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dietcoke Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Well done SPL. Looking like ESPN will get TV rights for next season Give it back to the BBC!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark_Mywords Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Record Sport can reveal ESPN ? who are owned by the Walt Disney company ? are in talks with the Irish-based outfit about either joining forces or buying their television rights. It's official... SPL are going to become a Mickey Mouse league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 the old firm and aberdeen thought the sky deal was the best option. less money but more secure with a bigger viewing audience. we voted for setanta so we can't blame the SPL Umm...is this correct? Didn't the OF veto an agreement on a decent offer made by Sky which thereafter left us with very little to choose from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mutley Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Umm...is this correct? Didn't the OF veto an agreement on a decent offer made by Sky which thereafter left us with very little to choose from? That was the original deal. It was renewed in 2008 and thats when we could have moved back to sky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 That was the original deal. It was renewed in 2008 and thats when we could have moved back to sky It's all a bit sketchy in my head but I'm not convinced that we had any alternatives around the time that the deal was renewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BangkokHearts Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Well done SPL. Looking like ESPN will get TV rights for next season Give it back to the BBC!! Excellent news for those of us in Asia-Pacific. ESPN Asia coverage of the football is far superior than Setanta or the local clowns that do the EPL over here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Umm...is this correct? Didn't the OF veto an agreement on a decent offer made by Sky which thereafter left us with very little to choose from? That is my recollection of what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flogel98 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 The OF veto'd the original renewal of the first Sky deal when some ?90m was on offer. That resulted in the BBC deal for which we ended up with ?45m IIRC. From there, we lurched to Satan ta but not sure how this decision ws arrived at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 That was the original deal. It was renewed in 2008 and thats when we could have moved back to sky The deal that was renewed in July 2008 doesn't start until 2010. We are still in the middle of the original deal with Setanta - the one the OF pushed us all into. Obviously, the 2008 deal was 'pie in the sky' since Setanta can't even honour the original deal. Also, shortly after the July agreement Setanta made it clear that they would be looking for a buyer by Spring 2009. That plan was knocked on the head by the recession. So in July 2008 Setanta seem to have been negotiating deals that they must have known were a) unlikely to be honoured, or, would have to be carried by another company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 That is my recollection of what happened Where is JKB's resident football encyclopaedia when you need him? Pfft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Where is JKB's resident football encyclopaedia when you need him? Pfft. You called? From memory, so don't quote me on this, the whole of the SPL vetoed SKY's offer, in the process completely overvaluing their product. Hearts and others then set about putting together SPL TV, which the OF vetoed: hence the fury of the 'other ten', and threat to resign from the league. This was resolved when the old 11-1 majority system was scrapped, meaning the OF could no longer act in unison to paralyse the rest - but Setanta's coverage of Scottish football has actually proved very, very like the SPL TV idea proposed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redm Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 You called? From memory, so don't quote me on this, the whole of the SPL vetoed SKY's offer, in the process completely overvaluing their product. Hearts and others then set about putting together SPL TV, which the OF vetoed: hence the fury of the 'other ten', and threat to resign from the league. This was resolved when the old 11-1 majority system was scrapped, meaning the OF could no longer act in unison to paralyse the rest - but Setanta's coverage of Scottish football has actually proved very, very like the SPL TV idea proposed in the first place. And as if by magic. Yep, it was something along those lines. There was a good chapter about it in a book I read a few years ago...'Out of Time - Why football isn't working' or something like that anyway... It's currently residing in a box somewhere but worth reading if I ever find it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeN Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 You called? From memory, so don't quote me on this, the whole of the SPL vetoed SKY's offer, in the process completely overvaluing their product. Hearts and others then set about putting together SPL TV, which the OF vetoed: hence the fury of the 'other ten', and threat to resign from the league. This was resolved when the old 11-1 majority system was scrapped, meaning the OF could no longer act in unison to paralyse the rest - but Setanta's coverage of Scottish football has actually proved very, very like the SPL TV idea proposed in the first place. That all rings bells except my recollection is that it was the Old Firm that didn't like the Sky offer and used their power of veto to over-rule the other ten, the majority of whom (maybe all ten)wanted to accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Harris Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 sorry for the bump of an older thread but found an article that addresses the question above from the Sunday Herald, March 21, 2004: David Murray has launched a stinging criticism of the SPL for agreeing a television deal with Setanta Sport rather than the BBC. Murray said he feared Scottish football could "end up in a Nationwide situation" and criticised the SPL for declaring the deal was done before Setanta's resources had been fully investigated. SPL auditors are still carrying out due diligence to satisfy themselves about Dublin-based Setanta's accounts, but the governing body have already announced that a ?35 million, four-year deal has been agreed in principle. Nine SPL clubs voted to accept Setanta's offer at a Hampden board meeting last month, with only Rangers and Celtic voting against and Dundee United abstaining. "I'd have done the BBC deal without a shadow of a doubt," said Rangers' honorary chairman. "It's safe, it's secure, it's not as many games being shown live. I would rather have certainty. There must be uncertainty at the moment because we're doing due diligence on Setanta. "What the SPL have done is like buying a house without doing a survey first. I don't think it's in the best interests of Scottish football." The BBC offered ?6m a year to broadcast 24 live games, compared to Setanta's 38 matches, but the offer excluded two Old Firm games per season. Murray's contention was that those games could have been sold on a one-off basis for ?1m a time, meaning the overall income was equal to Setanta's offer and far more secure. "Financially the BBC deal might not have been any less than Setanta's. So why have the clubs done it? I think some of them wanted to announce it, to put in their cash flow that they've got this money coming. "John McClelland [Rangers' chairman] voted against it and came out of the meeting and said to me 'I can't believe this has happened'. Celtic voted against it too. I just think the length of the contract is too long for someone who doesn't have a financial track record. "That's borne out by the fact we are doing financial diligence. You wouldn't be doing financial diligence on Sky or the BBC would you?" "My fear is that we end up in a Nationwide League situation," said Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.