jumpship Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 Hearts will push for a fairer distribution of broadcast revenue for all members when the Scottish Premier League clubs meet at Hampden on Monday. They are also keen to discuss the reinstatement of the reserve league. No final vote on league structure will take place, with the top-10 set-up favoured by the SPL's strategic review group failing to enthuse all clubs. Instead, the clubs will discuss their preferences for change before making final choices with their own boards. SPL chairman Ralph Topping and chief executive Neil Doncaster travelled to Lithuania on Thursday to discuss league changes with Hearts majority shareholder Vladimir Romanov. The duo would like to see two SPL leagues of 10 teams, arguing that this would generate the greatest revenue for the member clubs. However, after meeting Topping and Doncaster Hearts have stopped short of a full endorsement of their plans. Speaking after the meeting in Lithuania, Hearts director Sergejus Fedotovas told Hearts News: "It was good to meet with Neil Doncaster and Ralph Topping and the talks which we had were both productive and constructive. "Hearts plans to fully play its part in the development of Scottish football and we are fully supportive of a move for change for the good of the game." Scepticism emerged from clubs including Dundee United, Inverness, Kilmarnock and St Mirren over the proposals following a meeting earlier this month. And Hearts reportedly remained unconvinced by the plans which included the introduction of play-offs, an earlier start to the season and a winter shutdown. A 16-team top league, favoured by many fans, was dismissed by the SPL as they say it would mean clubs would lose around ?1m per year in revenue on match days and from television. But clubs will debate the merits of a 14-team league, where teams would play each other home and away before the league would split into two. Whatever the split format - 7/7, 8/6, 6/8 - it would signal the end of the unpopular fixture imbalances that have been thrown up in recent seasons since teams would play their opponents twice each either side of the division. The SPL management hope they reach an agreement in principle at the meeting without pushing for a formal vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboAberdeen Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Cant see it go through as OF will never give up their privilege and vote required to change TV income is 11-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dobmisterdobster Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The old firm will just veto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambof3tornado Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Anyone know how the money is currently split? Do we get more than say hamilton? Or is it just a big chunk to the uglies and the rest split evenly amongst the other 10 clubs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Footballfirst Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Anyone know how the money is currently split? Do we get more than say hamilton? Or is it just a big chunk to the uglies and the rest split evenly amongst the other 10 clubs? 1 - 4% + 13% = 17% 2 - 4% + 11% = 15% 3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5% 4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5% 5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0% 6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5% 7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0% 8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5% 9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0% 10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5% 11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0% 12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5% The current pot is around ?16M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neave Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Cant see it go through as OF will never give up their privilege and vote required to change TV income is 11-1. Hmm, how convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 1 - 4% + 13% = 17% 2 - 4% + 11% = 15% 3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5% 4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5% 5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0% 6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5% 7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0% 8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5% 9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0% 10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5% 11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0% 12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5% The current pot is around ?16M No surprise to see that 1st and 2nd got the most while there's not a massive difference between the other 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 1 - 4% + 13% = 17% 2 - 4% + 11% = 15% 3 - 4% + 5.5% = 9.5% 4 - 4% + 4.5% = 8.5% 5 - 4% + 4.0% = 8.0% 6 - 4% + 3.5% = 7.5% 7 - 4% + 3.0% = 7.0% 8 - 4% + 2.5% = 6.5% 9 - 4% + 2.0% = 6.0% 10 - 4% + 1.5% = 5.5% 11 - 4% + 1.0% = 5.0% 12 - 4% + 0.5% = 4.5% The current pot is around ?16M Within the above table the distribution is perfectly fair, in my eyes, from position 12 up to position 3. It then goes way to pot in positions one and two (positions both the OF and those that came up with such a split, probably always thought/knew would be occupied by Rangers and Celtic). In terms of such cash, and I'm assuming the ?16 million relates mainly to TV money, but includes roughly ?1 million of other funds intended to be pooled, my opinion is it should be spilt much more equally from position 12 to position 1. Why should there be such an equal distribution/Increase which suddenly goes bonkers when you reach the top two positions.. It is a pooled fund intended to benefit all, not keep the OF living a life of luxury at the expense of all others. However, as others have said, getting the OF to agree to change will be almost impossible, these things should have been ironed out before any initial amounts were agreed to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The arguement the Old Firm put forward has merit. They are, without doubt, the biggest attraction. The best thing to do is let each team make their own tv deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Cant see it go through as OF will never give up their privilege and vote required to change TV income is 11-1. Why the founder clubs of the SPL ever agreed to this in a complete mystery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The arguement the Old Firm put forward has merit. They are, without doubt, the biggest attraction. Correct. We would get a hell of a lot less if anything at all if the OF were not involved. Add to that how much of a percentage do you think we would get it if the pot was split between 16 teams ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Why the founder clubs of the SPL ever agreed to this in a complete mystery. No doubt greed got the better of them. They probably thought although they were going to get a smaller percentage it was coming from a much larger pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The arguement the Old Firm put forward has merit. They are, without doubt, the biggest attraction. The best thing to do is let each team make their own tv deal. That's true. However, it is then ridiculous for them to complain about the lack of a competitive league hindering their European ambitions. They can't have their cake and eat it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The arguement the Old Firm put forward has merit. They are, without doubt, the biggest attraction. The best thing to do is let each team make their own tv deal. I'm guessing that everyone who has the Sky TV sports package/ESPN either directly with Sky or through Virgin Media are the target audience of such football, such TV deals will not live or die on the number of subscribers who are solely OF fans. Whether or not the majority, who will not be OF fans, choose to watch such games is irrelevant, as Sky/Virgin/ESPN are getting their money anyway through the subscriptions. And surely the overall package on offer to such subscribers will only get better, and potentially attract more subscribers/viewers, if the other teams are given a fairer share of the funds, a chance to put together better teams and as a result create a situation where more games would be worth watching. As I've said before on another thread I cannot understand the Sky love affair with the OF. The games between the two tend to provide absolutely terrible viewing, and all Sky are doing is effectively showing open support for two football clubs who between them define all that is wrong with Scottish society in general. The media say they are anti this and anti that in football, but batter funds into the two main protagonists of such divisions, not only in football but in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The arguement the Old Firm put forward has merit. They are, without doubt, the biggest attraction. The best thing to do is let each team make their own tv deal. Did Setanta not claim that they actually got higher figures at the start of 2005-2006 due to the additional interest of something different happening in Scotland? Rantic claim to be worlwide brands (in the top 6 if you ask them). A loss of ?0.5-?1.0m each from the pot shouldn't make any difference to them - but will for the rest of the clubs. Although those clubs should encouraged where to spend the extra money. They have joint turnovers of around ?130m - it's up to then to make their operational costs more efficient to drive that turnover into reasonable profit. Their CEOs for example horse over ?1.0m between them. Similar to that of a ?bn turnover mid sized company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Excellent point PJ1 and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but during 05/06 did we not consistently get higher viewing figures than the OF proving that viewers would rather watch a team challenging them than to see the OF fighting it out amongst themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Correct. We would get a hell of a lot less if anything at all if the OF were not involved. Add to that how much of a percentage do you think we would get it if the pot was split between 16 teams ? Aye that's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the old firm would get no tv money without the rest of the spl teams because you can't have a league with two sides in it. Why would a jambo try to see things from an old firm viewpoint? Meant to add - do you know that under the current proposals first place and second place would still get 17% and 15% with the clubs further down the league getting less because some of there percentage would go towards teams in spl 2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Correct. We would get a hell of a lot less if anything at all if the OF were not involved. Add to that how much of a percentage do you think we would get it if the pot was split between 16 teams ? It is this mentality that stops progress in our game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It is this mentality that stops progress in our game. If you don't think it's true then you're wired to the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Did Setanta not claim that they actually got higher figures at the start of 2005-2006 due to the additional interest of something different happening in Scotland? Rantic claim to be worlwide brands (in the top 6 if you ask them). A loss of ?0.5-?1.0m each from the pot shouldn't make any difference to them - but will for the rest of the clubs. Although those clubs should encouraged where to spend the extra money. They have joint turnovers of around ?130m - it's up to then to make their operational costs more efficient to drive that turnover into reasonable profit. Their CEOs for example horse over ?1.0m between them. Similar to that of a ?bn turnover mid sized company Good post. It's not just about the cash from the old firms point of view. It's about increasing the gap between them and everyone else. Making sure they are never challenged by anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If you don't think it's true then you're wired to the moon. Gods a jambo is correct. It is that mentality that keeps the old firm firmly on top and everyone else existing as there lapdogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Gods a jambo is correct. It is that mentality that keeps the old firm firmly on top and everyone else existing as there lapdogs. What's the point in pretending ? There is no doubt we would get a hell of a lot less from a TV deal if they OF weren't involved. I fail to see how anyone can possibly disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If you don't think it's true then you're wired to the moon. To be fair he didn't say it wasn't true but the inferiority complex the rest of the clubs have towards the OF is what's holding back Scottish football they might be a draw fair enough but they aren't the only show in town and they can't make a penny without the rest of us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Aye that's one way of looking at it. The other way is that the old firm would get no tv money without the rest of the spl teams because you can't have a league with two sides in it. That is correct but if we talking about a league without the OF you would assume they have reach their pot of gold(premiership) so your point is completely irrelevant. Why would a jambo try to see things from an old firm viewpoint? I am looking at from our point of view. No OF = Less sell out, noor little TV money = less income for us. Meant to add - do you know that under the current proposals first place and second place would still get 17% and 15% with the clubs further down the league getting less because some of there percentage would go towards teams in spl 2? Current proposals have nothing to do with what I said but yes I am aware that 8 clubs will be getting a smaller percentage rather than 10 sharing what they get now. It will still be more than we would get without the OF. Rantic knows this and so does just about every chairman in the SPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 To be fair he didn't say it wasn't true but the inferiority complex the rest of the clubs have towards the OF is what's holding back Scottish football they might be a draw fair enough but they aren't the only show in town and they can't make a penny without the rest of us How on earth is it a inferiority complex ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 To be fair he didn't say it wasn't true but the inferiority complex the rest of the clubs have towards the OF is what's holding back Scottish football they might be a draw fair enough but they aren't the only show in town and they can't make a penny without the rest of us I absolutely agree with this. But still.... We would get a hell of a lot less money, if anything at all, if the OF were not involved. Thay are without doubt the big draw for the TV companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 regardless of 10, 12,14, 16 or 18 teams in the league the SPL sell their TV and sponsorship rights on a collective basis therefore each club MUSTreceive an EQAL SHARE! Anybody who thinks an unequal split is okay deliberately wants to create and maintain wealth disparity that reduces competitiveness in the SPL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 That is correct but if we talking about a league without the OF you would assume they have reach their pot of gold(premiership) so your point is completely irrelevant. I am looking at from our point of view. No OF = Less sell out, noor little TV money = less income for us. Current proposals have nothing to do with what I said but yes I am aware that 8 clubs will be getting a smaller percentage rather than 10 sharing what they get now. It will still be more than we would get without the OF. Rantic knows this and so does just about every chairman in the SPL. No to your first point. If the other spl clubs stuck together we could hold the balance of power. The epl clubs don't want the old firm so they are stuck in Scotland. The rest of your comments see gods a jambos post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 regardless of 10, 12,14, 16 or 18 teams in the league the SPL sell their TV and sponsorship rights on a collective basis therefore each club MUSTreceive an EQAL SHARE! Anybody who thinks an unequal split is okay deliberately wants to create and maintain wealth disparity that reduces competitiveness in the SPL. Regards of final positions or amount of TV appearances ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If you don't think it's true then you're wired to the moon. I will ignore that. What's the point in pretending ? There is no doubt we would get a hell of a lot less from a TV deal if they OF weren't involved. I fail to see how anyone can possibly disagree. Who's pretending it isnt a fact? So lets just stay the same, **** it, we need the Old Firm and long may they continue to dominate the league. Who cares clubs near bankrupt themselves to try and keep up with them. Who cares that they hold all the cards and go out of their way to do so. Its a mentalty which serves to keep the status quo, change is never easy and any real drastic change would be hard, but lets be honest a club like Hearts is 30m in debt and hasnt won the league since 1963! Your point is neither here or there, as I never stated it wasnt a fact tv companies want the old firm, christ my 3 year old knows that. My point is that train of thought will only keep us where we are, drastic and painful changes must be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 regardless of 10, 12,14, 16 or 18 teams in the league the SPL sell their TV and sponsorship rights on a collective basis therefore each club MUSTreceive an EQAL SHARE! Anybody who thinks an unequal split is okay deliberately wants to create and maintain wealth disparity that reduces competitiveness in the SPL. An equal share would be 8.3%, so as long as we finish in the top 4 we get more than that. Even 5th is very close to an equal share. That means that we should always be getting an even share, probably averaging more than an equal share. I agree that it's not fair that the OF get so much though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 How on earth is it a inferiority complex ? What you and Drylaw Hearts are effectively saying is the rest of Scottish football cannot and/or will not survive without the OF, that is an inferiority complex. If you then cave in, stick to the status quo and say "Yes sirs, No sirs, three bags full sirs, anything you want we'll agree to", that is displaying an inferiority complex. To say Scottish football won't survive without the OF is a nonsense, because there are no facts to base such a statement on. We need clubs to stand up to them, make them aware nobody else wants them in another league, make them aware they are nothing more than a constituent part of the existing SPL, hold no more rights than any other member club and as such are not entitled to the largest share of the pie". Without the other member clubs the OF are feck all, the other member clubs should not be expected to bend to them simply because they are the OF, we are not subservient to them, we are equals, and as such deserve an equal share of anything, including money, that is on the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 How on earth is it a inferiority complex ? How is it not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Benoit Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 How on earth is it a inferiority complex ? How is it not? as far as going up against the OF teams are defeated before they've even started on and off the the pitch what else is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Ok I've amended the table supplied earlier example of a 16 team league with SAME cash allocated EQUITABLY ? I'm struggling to make it readable though so bare with me 1 2% 8% 10% 2 2% 7.5% 9.5% 3 2% 7% 9% 4 2% 6.5% 8.5% 5 2% 6% 8% 6 2% 5.5% 7.5% 7 2% 5 % 7% 8 2% 4.5% 6.5% 9 2% 4% 6% 10 2% 3.5% 5.5% 11 2% 3% 5% 12 2% 2.5% 4.5% 13 2% 2% 4% 14 2% 1.5% 3.5% 15 2% 1% 3% 16 2% 0.5% 2.5% Places 9 - 12 ( current teams ) would notice NO drop in income ( ok No3 loses 0.5 % but that us anyway ) The 4 NEW teams in places 13 - 16 will get their fair share of the pot Greater share is achieved by clawing cash back from 1st and 2nd place, The amount in the pot would be dependant on the SKY deal remaining the same of course, and that will need some hard bargaining and perhaps a change of focus from OF derbies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 What you and Drylaw Hearts are effectively saying is the rest of Scottish football cannot and/or will not survive without the OF, that is an inferiority complex. If you then cave in, stick to the status quo and say "Yes sirs, No sirs, three bags full sirs, anything you want we'll agree to", that is displaying an inferiority complex. To say Scottish football won't survive without the OF is a nonsense, because there are no facts to base such a statement on. We need clubs to stand up to them, make them aware nobody else wants them in another league, make them aware they are nothing more than a constituent part of the existing SPL, hold no more rights than any other member club and as such are not entitled to the largest share of the pie". Without the other member clubs the OF are feck all, the other member clubs should not be expected to bend to them simply because they are the OF, we are not subservient to them, we are equals, and as such deserve an equal share of anything, including money, that is on the table. I think what the recent 'bargaining' has shown up is the ridiculous iniquity in the league finances and it doesn't take much for any neutral or none OF blinkered soul to see that there is something far wrong. It's clear that the Satellite broadcasters desire OF derbies but that is something we can negotiate surely as it's becoming quite clear that, fanciful as the argument may seem, we CAN say to the OF "well just what league are you going to take your 'appeal' to cos NOBODY wants you ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie-Brown Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 home teams should get an equal amount of live games per season and a fixed fee to coer additional costs and lost revenue thatway each team gets the same. why do away teams get anything? Esp when every OF away game is shown live, they benefit at everybody elses expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 What you and Drylaw Hearts are effectively saying is the rest of Scottish football cannot and/or will not survive without the OF, that is an inferiority complex. I said no such thing PJ1. What was said and what I agreed to was... "We would get a hell of a lot less money, if anything at all, if the OF were not involved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 home teams should get an equal amount of live games per season and a fixed fee to coer additional costs and lost revenue thatway each team gets the same. why do away teams get anything? Esp when every OF away game is shown live, they benefit at everybody elses expense. Exactly, its set up to benefit these clowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 What you and Drylaw Hearts are effectively saying is the rest of Scottish football cannot and/or will not survive without the OF, that is an inferiority complex. If you then cave in, stick to the status quo and say "Yes sirs, No sirs, three bags full sirs, anything you want we'll agree to", that is displaying an inferiority complex. To say Scottish football won't survive without the OF is a nonsense, because there are no facts to base such a statement on. We need clubs to stand up to them, make them aware nobody else wants them in another league, make them aware they are nothing more than a constituent part of the existing SPL, hold no more rights than any other member club and as such are not entitled to the largest share of the pie". Without the other member clubs the OF are feck all, the other member clubs should not be expected to bend to them simply because they are the OF, we are not subservient to them, we are equals, and as such deserve an equal share of anything, including money, that is on the table. Good post. The old firm need scottish football more than scottish football needs them. The rest of the clubs need to realize this and act accordingly. To put it simply if the old firm are not involved the others would lose out on tv income. If the other clubs exclude the old firm (because of there greed) the old firm would have no league to play in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Ok I've amended the table supplied earlier example of a 16 team league with SAME cash allocated EQUITABLY ? I'm struggling to make it readable though so bare with me 1 2% 8% 10% 2 2% 7.5% 9.5% 3 2% 7% 9% 4 2% 6.5% 8.5% 5 2% 6% 8% 6 2% 5.5% 7.5% 7 2% 5 % 7% 8 2% 4.5% 6.5% 9 2% 4% 6% 10 2% 3.5% 5.5% 11 2% 3% 5% 12 2% 2.5% 4.5% 13 2% 2% 4% 14 2% 1.5% 3.5% 15 2% 1% 3% 16 2% 0.5% 2.5% Places 9 - 12 ( current teams ) would notice NO drop in income ( ok No3 loses 0.5 % but that us anyway ) The 4 NEW teams in places 13 - 16 will get their fair share of the pot Greater share is achieved by clawing cash back from 1st and 2nd place, The amount in the pot would be dependant on the SKY deal remaining the same of course, and that will need some hard bargaining and perhaps a change of focus from OF derbies? The thing is BD that within either a 14 or 16 team league (14 appearing ot be the one most clubs appear to be most interested in, and this was the route the original investigation was supposed to be going down) there would still be a split, but a split made in a manner that would ensure an equal split of home/away matches for all. Such a split would ensure there was still 4 OF games, given the chances of them not being in the same half of such a split are remote (even if both ended up in the bottom half of the table Sky would still have their 4 OF games to keep happy the hordes of non interested viewers in England whom they seem to think do take an interest in these games, the neanderthals in Scotland who follow those clubs and the lapdogs (fans/directors/chairmen of non OF clubs who think we cannot live without the bigot brothers). The thing I think which really scares the OF when it comes to discussing equal splits of money is they are worried such an equal split could create a situation where other clubs would have a better chance of getting in about them and they would then realise how alienated and feckin unimportant they (the OF) really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I said no such thing PJ1. What was said and what I agreed to was... "We would get a hell of a lot less money, if anything at all, if the OF were not involved." And, again the old firm would have no one to play against if the other clubs excluded them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Who's pretending it isnt a fact? So lets just stay the same, **** it, we need the Old Firm and long may they continue to dominate the league. Who cares clubs near bankrupt themselves to try and keep up with them. Who cares that they hold all the cards and go out of their way to do so. Its a mentalty which serves to keep the status quo, change is never easy and any real drastic change would be hard, but lets be honest a club like Hearts is 30m in debt and hasnt won the league since 1963! Your point is neither here or there, as I never stated it wasnt a fact tv companies want the old firm, christ my 3 year old knows that. My point is that train of thought will only keep us where we are, drastic and painful changes must be made. The fact is that TV companies only really want the OF and the rest of us are just making up the numbers as far as they're concerned. How do we sort that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 And, again the old firm would have no one to play against if the other clubs excluded them. The other clubs can't/won't exclude them though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Good post. The old firm need scottish football more than scottish football needs them. The rest of the clubs need to realize this and act accordingly. To put it simply if the old firm are not involved the others would lose out on tv income. If the other clubs exclude the old firm (because of there greed) the old firm would have no league to play in. In a nutshell this is the type of menatlity clubs need to adopt if any real change is going to happen. Surely the reason were seeking change is that the old way just isnt working? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 And, again the old firm would have no one to play against if the other clubs excluded them. What you on about? This thread is about tv deals. If individual clubs were left to make their own tv deals and individual clubs collected all the money from their home games then we will make more money when playing the Old Firm than when we play any other club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The other clubs can't/won't exclude them though. Correct. Because of inferiority complexes as demonstratedon here which takes the whole thing back to gods a jambos post which sums the whole thing up. Every change in the last 30 years has benefited the old firm most and this trend will continue until the other clubs grow some nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I don't think they did.... Was it not after the breakaway over the TV deal failed, that the Old Firm insisted on this as the price to get them back onboard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The fact is that TV companies only really want the OF and the rest of us are just making up the numbers as far as they're concerned. How do we sort that ? If the old firm or sky could get them in England they would be gone the morn, so any negotiations should be handled with that menatlity. Hard decisions must be made, the old firm should be told your part of the spl, not the spl. Sky couldnt give a rats erse who the team is, so long as they get people to pay money to watch their games. The old firm want to be those teams, and as long as they are, they will/do everything they can so that situation doesnt change. We need our league to become competative and force other teams to become a draw for supporters. These talks are happening as fans are turning off, the league is stale. Clubs should be thinking long term, looking to create a prodcut that gives them a bargining tool with sky. The constant pursuit of tv money will only continue to serve the olf firm and so the cycle continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Correct. Because of inferiority complexes as demonstratedon here which takes the whole thing back to gods a jambos post which sums the whole thing up. Every change in the last 30 years has benefited the old firm most and this trend will continue until the other clubs grow some nuts. I'm not sure if you (and one or two others) have misread/misunderstood the post which started off this little debate. So I'll post it again just to clarify..... "We would get a hell of a lot less money, if anything at all, if the OF were not involved." This has nothing to do with 'inferiority complexes' - it is just a fact based on what we know about TV companies and the way they work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.