Ben Dover Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Yes and no. Celtic may be many things - but you can't say they don't run their finances incredibly well. There was a separate SKY deal on offer when the Setanta one was agreed: SKY are a heck of a lot more reliable, and offered a huge amount. But because Setanta offered a bit more, the SPL vetoed what the OF and Aberdeen wanted - and now it's the SPL with egg on their face. Aye, I think our hatred of the Tattie howkers is perhaps clouding the real issue here As I said earlier. It looks like Setanta responded to the SKY threat by putting forward a preposterous deal that SHOULD SURELY have raised the suspicions of anyone who claimed to have any business acumen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderstruck Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 BBC made much of the "extra cost" to both punters and publicans. For punters, there will only be an extra cost if they do not have a Sky Sports subscription as the ESPN sub of ?10/month is on a par with Setanta. If I did not already have Sky Sports, I would wait and see how the allocation of games go. By a quirk of Virgin's pricing, my total monthly package actually cost less AFTER I added Setanta. Similar deals will, no doubt, appear soon enough. As for publicans, I doubt there are many who are not already paying for both Sky and Setanta so cost to them should not change. Not going to lose sleep over any publicans or brewery chains losing some profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortyJambo Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 There was a separate SKY deal on offer when the Setanta one was agreed: SKY are a heck of a lot more reliable, and offered a huge amount. But because Setanta offered a bit more, the SPL vetoed what the OF and Aberdeen wanted - and now it's the SPL with egg on their face. At the time, the deal with Setanta was agreed in part because they'd shown "loyalty" to the SPL when Sky hadn't been interested (extra money helped as well of course), and the demise of Setanta wasn't really expected. Imagine what would have happened if the SPL had dumpled Setanta and jumped back into bed with Sky, we'd probably be getting blamed for the demise of Setanta now instead of them overstretching for the EPL. It's always easy with hindsight... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 At the time, the deal with Setanta was agreed in part because they'd shown "loyalty" to the SPL when Sky hadn't been interested (extra money helped as well of course), and the demise of Setanta wasn't really expected. Imagine what would have happened if the SPL had dumpled Setanta and jumped back into bed with Sky, we'd probably be getting blamed for the demise of Setanta now instead of them overstretching for the EPL. It's always easy with hindsight... Very true. Loyalty is a precious commodity and I can see why it may have swung the deal However somebody should surely have been doing their sums ( at the SPL ) re. Setanta being able to fulfil their part of the bargain ( deal was 2 x the current value was it not and therefore surely dubious ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blairdin Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Just to clarify what I've found out. ITs 65 million over 5 years with a stepped payment proceedure. year 1. 12m year 2. 12.5. year 3. 13 then an option for the spl to walk away but if not year 4 13.5 year 5. 14m So its actually less than the previous setanta deal in year 1. Also, its even worse for the lower end teams. The appearance fee per games has been slashed and the prize money for the top 2 teams increased. Not the greatest deal but the only one around. Cant find out any broadcast plans yet though. Spot the sweetener that was offered to the ugly sisters from Weejieville to persuade them to accept this deal. It just annoys me that media still only see two clubs in Scottish football. The old firm might be bigger, but without the rest of us there would be no league - they need us as much as we need them. Mad Vlad - if you happen to read this, back Csaba with a striker good enough to finish second and split these arrogant weejie tossers. Sorry I missed a bit of the statement as I lifted off Newsnow SPL and they did not have this opening passage. Strong stuff including dig at Murray in the opening sentence.UP until now Celtic have made no official comment regarding the sale of SPL Football rights and revenue. But Celtic supporters - indeed all those who have the interests of Scottish football at heart ? have the right to know Celtic?s view on the debacle surrounding one of the most important issues facing Scottish football in recent decades. At today?s meeting Celtic made plain our view on the extent and consequences of the damage to the Scottish game of the misjudged handling of the whole issue, particularly last year?s decision to opt for Setanta. The responsibility for these decisions lies both with the collective and the leadership of the SPL. The lessons of this affair cannot just be ignored. I don't disagree with any of that Collingwood. However, what the old firm should have done is invited all of the SPL member clubs to get around the table, and not try to get into bed with Murray and then attempt to railroad the rest of us in line with you. What this sorry affair has reaffirmed to me is that Scotland needs a single body running the game at all levels for the benefit of the game as a whole and the supporters - not an SPL, an SFA an SFL or to a lesser extent an old firm who each have their own agenda. I think the deal with Sky and ESPN is as good as we'd get now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Aye, I think our hatred of the Tattie howkers is perhaps clouding the real issue here As I said earlier. It looks like Setanta responded to the SKY threat by putting forward a preposterous deal that SHOULD SURELY have raised the suspicions of anyone who claimed to have any business acumen I know it did in my case - and what the **** do I know about this stuff? When the deal was announced, I was elated for about 6.8 seconds; then I thought: "Hang on - they've offered how much? Up against a company as dominant as SKY, can they afford that?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun.lawson Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 At the time, the deal with Setanta was agreed in part because they'd shown "loyalty" to the SPL when Sky hadn't been interested (extra money helped as well of course), and the demise of Setanta wasn't really expected. Imagine what would have happened if the SPL had dumpled Setanta and jumped back into bed with Sky, we'd probably be getting blamed for the demise of Setanta now instead of them overstretching for the EPL. It's always easy with hindsight... Was it? If SKY had offered more than Setanta, what would this loyalty have counted for then? Football clubs, and too many sporting organisations in general, always do this: highest bid wins, almost regardless of how secure the company offering the money is. When ITV Digital paid a fortune for the Nationwide League, barely anyone amongst the clubs stopped to think to themselves: "Hang on - just how credible is this?" Celtic's argument might well be that the SPL have now proven at least twice that they do not have a clue. God knows, Rangers are in no position to lecture anyone on management of their finances - but Celtic seem to have concluded: "The SPL couldn't run a bath - so we'd better take the rights over and do a proper job". I can see where they're coming from to be honest: however much self-interest is plainly at the heart of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colingwood Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The problem with the whole SPL approach is the start up costs which are substantial. I have no idea how many clubs could contribute to the pot. Getting a loan from some source for what is a speculative venture is going to be a major problem for many of the clubs. I am not even sure how many of them would want to be involved. There are obviously some clubs who view their membership of the SPL as temporary and are unlikely to see great value in taking some of the risk. My own ideal preference would be for the "bigger" clubs to join together in this project. However I have a problem with the competence and drive of many of the so called leading lights in the SPL. In my experience most entreprenurial success is driven by an individual who can push the project forward and take decisive action when required without reference to a guiding body. The prospect of the SPL board finding the common purpose and ability to act swiftly is in my view risible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iceking Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 So basically from paying ?10.99 on Freeview with Setanta that had 60 SPL games, 46 EPL games as well as other stuff, but could not get enough subscribers, you now have to get sky and pay a minimum of ?35.50+?9 = ?44.50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By The Light.. Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 What a load of tosh. Who gives a monkeys about TV rights? The bottom line is this club can only survive due to it's paying fans. If you really want to support the JTs come along, okay you might be offshore or out of circulation for a couple of years and want to watch on the telly. BUT in the long term, as ITV Digiital, SKY and Setanta have shown TV revenue is not reliable. C'mon the JTs btw when is the derby now? 7th November 3pm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bravosbest Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 What a load of tosh. Who gives a monkeys about TV rights? The bottom line is this club can only survive due to it's paying fans. If you really want to support the JTs come along, okay you might be offshore or out of circulation for a couple of years and want to watch on the telly. BUT in the long term, as ITV Digiital, SKY and Setanta have shown TV revenue is not reliable. C'mon the JTs btw when is the derby now? 7th November 3pm? Agreed If I lived in Edinburgh now would love to come each week, so for us unfortunates working down in England nothing changes go to local pub try and hope it has 2 tvs if not you cannot watch a match in the boozer if their is any game on the box whether it be conference or EPL. I hope Tynie if full every week then our club gets the money it needs to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJGJ Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 As usual the old firm will try to get their message out through their helpful friends in the press. The reality will differ from their version of course but never mind if you throw enough mud it will stick. They were part of a group that voted 9 -3 to reject a deal with Sky -- at that time there was no mention of them being unhappy nor a mention of how certain they were that this deal would collapse. They did not mention anything untoward at the time and you can bet that if the deal had been successful they would not have run to the papers and cried 'we were wrong, we are sorry' Like many the SPL was caught up in a crisis that was not forseeable at the time but of course in hindsight many will stand up and claim it was so obvious why couldn't you see it. The majority of the press and commentators at the time thought a good deal had been negotiated so for them to try and act as the judge of a good or bad deal is laughable. They (the old firm) are after what is best for them and not for Scottish football -- remember that first whenever they come up with an idea and especially when they have combined forces. What good does it do Scottish football for the old firm to come out and comment on the new deal -- none -- but it does try to make them seem like martyrs and the rest of us as fools and charletans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berrasbraw Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I have telewest/virgin,so will i be able to order this channel on its own,? or will i have to order sky sports too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fozzyonthefence Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The bottom line is this club can only survive due to it's paying fans. But that's not true is it? Even if Tynie is full every single game the income from that alone is nowhere near enough for us to survive. We rely on the income we get from TV & other sources & even then, as has been proved by our ridiculous increasing debt, it is not enough due to the club being badly mismanaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johanes de Silentio Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 The absolute best part of this is that the Old Firm are absolutely ****in' bealin'! Get it right up the dirty biggoted *****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicTs Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 btw when is the derby now? 7th November 3pm? Not if we get into the Europa League as we will play on Thursday 5th Nov. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 As usual the old firm will try to get their message out through their helpful friends in the press.The reality will differ from their version of course but never mind if you throw enough mud it will stick. They were part of a group that voted 9 -3 to reject a deal with Sky -- at that time there was no mention of them being unhappy nor a mention of how certain they were that this deal would collapse. They did not mention anything untoward at the time and you can bet that if the deal had been successful they would not have run to the papers and cried 'we were wrong, we are sorry' Like many the SPL was caught up in a crisis that was not forseeable at the time but of course in hindsight many will stand up and claim it was so obvious why couldn't you see it. The majority of the press and commentators at the time thought a good deal had been negotiated so for them to try and act as the judge of a good or bad deal is laughable. They (the old firm) are after what is best for them and not for Scottish football -- remember that first whenever they come up with an idea and especially when they have combined forces. What good does it do Scottish football for the old firm to come out and comment on the new deal -- none -- but it does try to make them seem like martyrs and the rest of us as fools and charletans. But we are part of the multi-media entertainment business nowadays and we really should seek representation from people who are savvy in that area ? The original SKY deal was rejected by ourselves collectively........but someone surely gave us ( questionable ) advice as a group to do so ? And lets not forget that 'someone' set the cost of the extensive highlights package so high that nobody in the market for it was willing to pay the price. Know your target audience / market ............rule No 1 in selling surely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlo2 Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I have telewest/virgin,so will i be able to order this channel on its own,? or will i have to order sky sports too? I suspect that you will be able to take the ESPN channel by itself, Sky will probably take the 'big' matches. OF derbies I will happily miss out on but Hibs-Hearts matches will likely be on Sky. EPSN will probably consist of matche such as Hamilton v Rangers and St Mirren v Celtic. Unless the ESPN cannel comes packaged with the Virgin Media Maxi deal (as Setanta did) I will goive both a miss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tams bird Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 I havnt reead through the thread, but I wont be paying ?36 a month to watch the SPL..Had a rant when i seen it on the news last night Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paolo Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 If poggs? info is correct then not only is this a smaller cake but the OF get a bigger slice.An interesting statement has just come out of Celtic Park. It is clear that a) they were serious about the OF TV proposal, They are going to persevere with the idea, c) It was their initiative which they took to Rangers. Celtic Chairman John Reid said: "Celtic have a responsibility to speak out for our supporters who will be deeply dissatisfied with the background to, and outcome of, the SPL decision and the events leading up to it. "No-one should underestimate the blow that has been inflicted on this club and Scottish football by the way in which the whole affair has been handled and by the losses incurred. "Last year's decision to reject the Sky bid and opt for Setanta - arrived at against the strong opposition of Celtic, Rangers and Aberdeen - has proved to be the disastrous misjudgement we indicated it might be, with Setanta now in administration. "In turn, this has led to the dilemma we now find ourselves in. "The SPL accepted a bid that is less than half the value of that offered by Sky last year. "The whole SPL is now a commercial victim, in an uncompetitive TV market, in the middle of a recession, locked in for years to an income some 60% lower than last year's bid. "This is the direct consequence of last year's misjudgement, one that has cost us all some ?70million in a sport that desperately needs the income and where our supporters are already paying their own hard-earned cash. "To Celtic it means a potential loss of up to ?12million over the four year period - the equivalent of around 6500 season tickets each year." Earlier in the week, it emerged that Celtic and Rangers could join forces to mount a bid for the broadcasting rights to Scottish football, a plan they claim would have benefited all clubs and not just the Old Firm. Reid added: "We need to face up to some harsh realities. "In an environment crying out for long-term thinking this concentration on short-term gain only leads to long-term pain. "Above all the SPL must learn the lessons of these events. "That is why we initiated discussion with Rangers Football Club to examine possible alternatives to the present position. "We reserve the right to continue to explore those options not only for the longer term benefit of Celtic football club but for everyone involved." He also said we would be in and out of Afghanistan without a shot being fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Maroonblood Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 He also said we would be in and out of Afghanistan without a shot being fired. Reid has always been a slavering er se. Some things never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 In think the SPL have over a number of years proved to be a less than clever or particularly competent organisation. There are number of reasons for this but one of the big ones is likely to be this one. There are 2 clubs in the SPL that take a massive and disproportionate percentage of income compared to the rest who have to fight for the scraps. This does not make for a happy ship or one that can come together and work for the common good. I may be wrong in percentages here but let us just say that Celtic and Rangers get 50% or 25% each and the other 10 clubs share 50% or 5% each. This has the effect that 83.333% of the members receive 50% of the income while the remaining 16.666% of the members receive the other 50% A year ago (or so) along come Setanta and offer say ?12 mill more than Sky so the 10 "small" clubs see an extra ?600,000 each and go for it. It is a large sum to all of them so you can kind of understand their position. The fact that the other 2 get ?3 mill each is, as I have said, the main problem. Now if the SPL pot was spread evenly over all members, which really is the only sensible and right way then all 12 members would receive 8.3333% each. (So a 3.333% increase in revenue for 10 and a decrease of 16.667% for the other 2.) There is of course no guarantee that any of the clubs would manage this extra income in a sensible way but it would give them a fighting chance to stay in business. However there could be some rules put in place as members of the SPL to ensure that each member club works within certain financial limits dictated by annual turnover. Celtic and Rangers due to their size can generate massive income from outwith ths SPL in ticket sales, merchandise, etc. etc. so IMHO they are being greedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Somethings we can glean from this debacle. The people running the SPL are incompetent. It also seems clear that the OF do not control the SPL - exactly the opposite IMO. Unless something is done to get the right TV deal in place in 3 years time the professional game in Scotland will be in utter turmoil IMO. Steps need to be taken now to ensure that all options will be examined and developed. IMO HMFC and other clubs should join the OF in looking at options outwith the SPL whose main objective seems to be to ensure the future of its lesser lights to the detriment of the professional game in this country moving forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Now if the SPL pot was spread evenly over all members, which really is the only sensible and right way then all 12 members would receive 8.3333% each. How is that the only sensible way? You don't think it makes sense to reward success? The premiership does alright without using "the only sensible and right way" you describe above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7628mm Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 How is that the only sensible way? You don't think it makes sense to reward success? The premiership does alright without using "the only sensible and right way" you describe above. I was under the impression that each club in the EPL receives the same amount at the start of the season from the TV money. Obviously there are other payments for final position in the league. Not really sure how they divvy up the live TV appearance money. I am fairly sure that in the EPL 3 or 4 clubs do not receive 50% of the TV revenue but the pot is spread more evenly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perth to Paisley Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Without going into the arithmetic of the monetary amonts paid - what was the outcome of the vote for the new deal? [presuming they had one] If it was 10 - 2 I thought the BB had a veto and it needed a 11-1 or it didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambos are go! Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Apparently the voting was 9-3 with Aberdeen joining the OF. A majority of at least 8-4 is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gareth_Hearts Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 This is good news:D As i live in Belfast i was fearing having to watch Hearts games on some internet site. Cant wait for the T.V. fixtures to be announced it'll show the way they're going to treat Hearts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.