johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. It's not a hard concept but i'llbreak it down. The other 10 clubs get together agree what a FAIR split of tv deals should be. If the old firm don't like it the others leave the spl and seek there own less profitable deal. Leaving the old firm high and dry. Leaving 10 clubs to form a league and 2 clubs with nobody to play against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. Not if were winning we wont, 2005 showed that when we cut the old firms allocation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. Yeah and as I said the old firm would get no money at all without the other ten. So how come everything always ends up the way that pair want it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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? I'm with you dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 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. It's the OF fans who'll be responsible for the overwhelming majority of Sky/ESPN subscriptions. "We would get a hell of a lot less money, if anything at all, if the OF were not involved." And the OF are well aware of this. There is no doubt we need to have a better distribution of the money but unless the 11-1 rule can be overruled then we're kinda stuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Yeah and as I said the old firm would get no money at all without the other ten. So how come everything always ends up the way that pair want it? Because of the way the SPL was set-up. Those who agreed to that original set-up have made a real mess of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigolo-Aunt Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It's the OF fans who'll be responsible for the overwhelming majority of Sky/ESPN subscriptions. "We would get a hell of a lot less money, if anything at all, if the OF were not involved." And the OF are well aware of this. There is no doubt we need to have a better distribution of the money but unless the 11-1 rule can be overruled then we're kinda stuck. And that's the killer. If I remember right, Chris Robinson a few years back wanted to put this to bed, wanted everyone outside the OF to stand together. At first it seemed like they might just take a stand, but in the end clubs folded. That's the key, everyone needs to stand together, if one drops out and sways with the OF, you are kind of messed. Anyone remember why the teams folded to the OF back then? Was it TV money again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Because of the way the SPL was set-up. Those who agreed to that original set-up have made a real mess of it. I agree but we can't keep going along with it forever with the old firm getting stronger and stronger in comparison to everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It's the OF fans who'll be responsible for the overwhelming majority of Sky/ESPN subscriptions. "We would get a hell of a lot less money, if anything at all, if the OF were not involved." And the OF are well aware of this. There is no doubt we need to have a better distribution of the money but unless the 11-1 rule can be overruled then we're kinda stuck. DH, this again comes down to the status quo. The only reason they get the biggest subscriptions is they are the winning teams and as long as we cater for them we will never progess and that suits them just fine. Everything in our game is geared towards the success (at the expense of the rest) of these two. Were actually told that we need a strong old firm! Sky will go with whoever is the biggest draw for punters, break the mould and allow others to have success (or at least the chance) and the pendulum will swing. As it stands Sky wants them, nobody denies that, what is being said is something must happens so as others become the big draw. As long as were told they are the only show in town they will remain so and our game will continue to die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 And that's the killer. If I remember right, Chris Robinson a few years back wanted to put this to bed, wanted everyone outside the OF to stand together. At first it seemed like they might just take a stand, but in the end clubs folded. That's the key, everyone needs to stand together, if one drops out and sways with the OF, you are kind of messed. Anyone remember why the teams folded to the OF back then? Was it TV money again? More than likely GA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It's not a hard concept but i'llbreak it down. The other 10 clubs get together agree what a FAIR split of tv deals should be. If the old firm don't like it the others leave the spl and seek there own less profitable deal. Leaving the old firm high and dry. Leaving 10 clubs to form a league and 2 clubs with nobody to play against. It does not work like that. Clubs can't just start up new leagues whenever they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It does not work like that. Clubs can't just start up new leagues whenever they want. If all 10 clubs resign from the SPL and then put together an alternative package it can be done, that is how the SPL was born initially, a breakaway. It cannot be done overnight, but it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 It does not work like that. Clubs can't just start up new leagues whenever they want. I know it isn't a case of right we're all away to start a new league so the old firm can get tae... However you need to give three years notice to leave the spl. If the other clubs resigned from the league and handed in that notice where does that leave the old firm? In a league of two or playing stirling, cowdenbeath etc. The old firm have as much to lose by ignoring the wishes of the other ten as vice versa but because the rest don't realize this and in effect have nae baws the old firm will always get there way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 DH, this again comes down to the status quo. The only reason they get the biggest subscriptions is they are the winning teams and as long as we cater for them we will never progess and that suits them just fine. Everything in our game is geared towards the success (at the expense of the rest) of these two. Were actually told that we need a strong old firm! Sky will go with whoever is the biggest draw for punters, break the mould and allow others to have success (or at least the chance) and the pendulum will swing. As it stands Sky wants them, nobody denies that, what is being said is something must happens so as others become the big draw. As long as were told they are the only show in town they will remain so and our game will continue to die. What we're told is irrelevant imo. As I've said....there is no doubt they are and probably always will be the biggest draw for TV companies due to their size, world-wide exposure and the numbers that subscribe to their televised matches. But I doubt TV companies actually care that much where the money they pay actually goes so when the current deal expires the other teams need to get together and have a re-write of the rules before any deal is agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 scottish football could exist without the old firm. it could also exist with the TV broadcasters. the old firm can't exist with scottish football. the broadcasters' 4 old firm matches per year can't exist with scottish football. to that end it should be simple for all the other clubs to hold out for an equal split of TV revenue. all that's needed is another breakaway threat and the only final conclusion can be that the old firm agree to it, or at the very least there is some compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vanbasten1874 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 My problem with breaking away from the OF is would they drop into the SFL division 1 and would the SFA recognise the breakaway league if not where would the TV money go . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/scotland/article564827.ece This is a good article as it shows what I am trying to say. Granted its Setanta, however it shows you the very basics of demand and supply. It can be changed and this article shows that tv companies will go with anyone so long as they can make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon 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. They can bleat on about the Uglies joining the English/Irish/Atlantic Leagues. or the Tristan da Cunha Championship. There is no guarantee that they would get into any other league! In fact, very little chance at present. Ipso facto, they need the rest of us amore than we "need" them!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If all 10 clubs resign from the SPL and then put together an alternative package it can be done, that is how the SPL was born initially, a breakaway. It cannot be done overnight, but it can be done. So the SPL (now Rangers and celtic) promote the SFL teams (Dundee, Dunfermline etc) to the top division playing to get into Europe etc. And we????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 What we're told is irrelevant imo. As I've said....there is no doubt they are and probably always will be the biggest draw for TV companies due to their size, world-wide exposure and the numbers that subscribe to their televised matches. But I doubt TV companies actually care that much where the money they pay actually goes so when the current deal expires the other teams need to get together and have a re-write of the rules before any deal is agreed. The last part of your second paragraph sums up what must happen in a nutshell. The other teams decide and if the old firm don't like it no deal is done. It's called not being subservient I believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Currahee! Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 How did clubs survive in the past when there was no TV money? The over reliance of TV money and the OF is a joke. Have no live games and more fans would get off their backsides and watch the games live. I'm sure I heard more people tune in to the derby than the OF down south. Can anyone confirm this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 What we're told is irrelevant imo. As I've said....there is no doubt they are and probably always will be the biggest draw for TV companies due to their size, world-wide exposure and the numbers that subscribe to their televised matches. But I doubt TV companies actually care that much where the money they pay actually goes so when the current deal expires the other teams need to get together and have a re-write of the rules before any deal is agreed. They are only the biggest draw as they win all the silverware its as simple as that. The part in bold is my point exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romanov Stole My Pension Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 For me, this is more important than changing the format of Scottish football (I don't believe any of the proposed changes will significantly improve the quality on show). An extra couple of percent won't make Hearts world-beaters but the TV money structure is ridiculously in favour of only two teams (nobody is arguing that the top 2 shouldn't get more money... but the jump from 3rd to 2nd compared with 4th to 3rd just isn't logical). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The last part of your second paragraph sums up what must happen in a nutshell. The other teams decide and if the old firm don't like it no deal is done. It's called not being subservient I believe. The only problem I see with that is...... Who would suffer most from no TV deal - the OF or the rest ? And if no deal is agreed - can they set-up their own deals and leave the rest even further behind ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnjl Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 So the SPL (now Rangers and celtic) promote the SFL teams (Dundee, Dunfermline etc) to the top division playing to get into Europe etc. And we????? See rather than have the etc. In your sentence finish the sentence listing the sides rangers and Celtic would have in there new league. Then you will see how ridiculous that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 But I doubt TV companies actually care that much where the money they pay actually goes so when the current deal expires the other teams need to get together and have a re-write of the rules before any deal is agreed. At the end of this tv deal if clubs cannot agree a collective tv deal then it will be up to the clubs themselves to agree individual tv deals. Hearts tv, Rangers tv, celtic tv, etc, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 At the end of this tv deal if clubs cannot agree a collective tv deal then it will be up to the clubs themselves to agree individual tv deals. Hearts tv, Rangers tv, celtic tv, etc, etc And then the gap widens further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 They can bleat on about the Uglies joining the English/Irish/Atlantic Leagues. or the Tristan da Cunha Championship. There is no guarantee that they would get into any other league! In fact, very little chance at present. Ipso facto, they need the rest of us amore than we "need" them!!! Correct Colin, the EPL / Atlantic league is not on the table so the only leverage they have is their attraction to the satellite broadcasters. I believe we can argue the toss on that issue as fans are clearly being turned off by the 4 game format? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 And then the gap widens further. Because? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 My problem with breaking away from the OF is would they drop into the SFL division 1 and would the SFA recognise the breakaway league if not where would the TV money go . the other clubs wield far more power than the old firm, but they are never organised enough to be able to bring it to bear. there may well be people who are reluctant to play hardball with the old firm for fear of them leaving scottish football if some opportunity came along in the future but they need not be. the old firm would jump ship in the blink of an eye in any case, even if they were getting all the TV money. nothing is going to keep the old firm here. while they are here they must be forced to comply with the other clubs and not be able to strip mine what they view as a condemned business. they have to be brow beaten, so does the SFA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankblack Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I see merit in there being a sliding scale from first to last in terms of winnings, but the figures quoted are disgraceful. The 11-1 veto the bigot brothers have will veto anything that balances the prize money. Therefore it will probably have to be that the other teams all resign from the league to leave those two on their own in the SPL. I wonder how much Sky would pay for 34 old firm games a season. The product Sky are broadcasting is weak because they are showing a home team trying to keep the score down against the old firm. What they should be showing is the "game of the day" e.g. 3rd vs 4th, 1st vs 3rd etc, old firm derby, edinburgh derby, new firm derby, or games between teams that are generally good to watch. As for those that think that we depend on the Old Firm, that is not the case. When doing well, our crowds will turn up (as long as the Wheatfield isn't closed). Even Hibs got better attendances in the 1st Division in '99 than they were getting in the SPL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drylaw Hearts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Because? Because.... the other teams will get even less money than they do now and the OF will get more as they will probably be the only ones with a permanent deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Dover Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 So the SPL (now Rangers and celtic) promote the SFL teams (Dundee, Dunfermline etc) to the top division playing to get into Europe etc. And we????? That would be interesting ? It would require 8 teams to come up mind ......................since Mr Doncaster assures us 10 teams is the optimum size AND they would surely require to have all seater stadiums !.......................Cowdenbeath ?? That would spark REAL revolution in the Scottish game mind ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gods a Jambo Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 To save anyone from reading the whole article this is the bit that matters and shows it can be changed. Few bookmakers, though, would have given you odds on tomorrow?s live television offering from Setanta being Livingston v Hearts at Almondvale Stadium. Hearts may be big box office just now ? they have sold out their own allocation of 6,000 tickets for the short trip down the M8, hot on the heels of the 17,000 sellout at Tynecastle a fortnight ago for the win over Motherwell ? but Livingston are about as far removed from sexy football as Kirsty Alley is from Keira Knightly. Nevertheless, Hearts? starring role in the Premierleague right now is all that counts. Setanta have been seduced by Burley?s side and that meant the satellite channel passing Rangers over this weekend in favour of the leaders. ?Under more normal circumstances I think we would have been at Falkirk for the visit of Rangers that weekend but Hearts have made tremendous progress and I think they are unmissable at the moment,? Colin Davidson, Setanta?s executive producer, said. ?We have always said that if there was a credible challenge from any club to Celtic or Rangers at the top of the table then that would reflected in our coverage. Hearts are proving that they are not a flash in the pan and that they have a squad of very good footballers who don?t look like they will get nervous at the situation. ?If either of the Old Firm had opened up a five-point lead at this stage, people would be saying that the league is over. They are not saying that now and, of course, Hearts will not win every game but they are demonstrating the kind of form the Old Firm has shown in the past. We are duty bound to cover them and are delighted to do so.? Davidson also revealed that the success of Hearts could well give him a problem when it comes to deciding what future matches to screen live. Under their four-year, ?35 million agreement with the SPL, Setanta can only show any one team four times at home. The cameras were at the first Edinburgh derby of the season at Tynecastle when the hosts romped to a stunning 4-0 triumph. Setanta will also carry Rangers? visit to Tynecastle on September 24. Celtic?s Hogmanay trip to Tynecastle is also a huge attraction and another home clash with Hibernian is scheduled for the end of January. So, Davidson admits, he may have to approach the SPL for some form of dispensation. ?As long as Hearts are top of the league or still challenging we will be with them all the way,? he said. ?It may be that we?ll have to ask the SPL for dispensation to show more Hearts matches. In previous seasons it has been a pretty straightforward decision to make when the Old Firm were playing away from home. But Hearts? success has given me a bit of a problem as there is very much a third factor to look at now.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DETTY29 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 And then the gap widens further. Celtic have lost 25k on gates this season - what happens if they started screening their home games live in Scotland as well? The average cost of a ppv per game would have to be ?25 to compensate. Then what about people that share out their log ons go to the pub. If all the clubs got together and told them to do one what is the worst that could happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 That would be interesting ? It would require 8 teams to come up mind ......................since Mr Doncaster assures us 10 teams is the optimum size AND they would surely require to have all seater stadiums !.......................Cowdenbeath ?? That would spark REAL revolution in the Scottish game mind ! Ayr United are building a new ground. Airdrie Utd, Livingston, Raith Rovers, The Pars, Falkirk, Dundee. And us. We should bump the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Only a Game Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Why the founder clubs of the SPL ever agreed to this in a complete mystery. Its not really a mystery. It dates back to the time when the SPL clubs outwith the OF very nearly found their baws for a break-away league, but bottled it at the last minute and dropped their knickers for them again and the price was an 11-1 majority required for changes. I can see the need for a clear majority of something like 9-3 or 8-4, but 11-1 was just capitulation from chairmen who didnt have any imagination or foresight. I'm not sure if we were one of the clubs who bottled it, but if there's one thing you can say about Romanov, he would never have gone along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Its not really a mystery. It dates back to the time when the SPL clubs outwith the OF very nearly found their baws for a break-away league, but bottled it at the last minute and dropped their knickers for them again and the price was an 11-1 majority required for changes. I can see the need for a clear majority of something like 9-3 or 8-4, but 11-1 was just capitulation from chairmen who didnt have any imagination or foresight. I'm not sure if we were one of the clubs who bottled it, but if there's one thing you can say about Romanov, he would never have gone along with it. And therein lies the reason why Messrs Doncaster and Topping have spent time with an individual owner in Lithuania. They recognise in Mr Romanov someone who is actually thinking about the long term good of Scottish football (in ideas such as fairer distribution of revenue, the re-introduction of a reserve league to aid with youth development) but whose thought process is along the lines of feck the OF. And if Mr Romanov is thinking that way they have to try and get him and HMFC onside before others start drawing the same conclusions, adopting the same approach and revolt. As Hearts fans we all drew opinions on Mr Romanov (as did the press/journalists, other clubs) over a course of time, in our case it was mainly based on some of the signings that arrived, in the case of the press some of the statements he made. In both cases what was possibly overlooked was his actual business acumen (understanding how to run a business and who to sign player wise are two totally different things), and what he was aiming to achieve through his statements (understanding why he suggested some of the signings he made, naw, none of us using this board will live long enough to work that out) I sincerely hope HMFC, and Mr Romanov don't give in. We have a chance to benefit Scottish football in general here, with very simple easy to introduce options. Simply giving in and accepting a package which benefits no one other than the OF is not an option, and if that means telling the OF to get to feck so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vanbasten1874 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 the other clubs wield far more power than the old firm, but they are never organised enough to be able to bring it to bear. there may well be people who are reluctant to play hardball with the old firm for fear of them leaving scottish football if some opportunity came along in the future but they need not be. the old firm would jump ship in the blink of an eye in any case, even if they were getting all the TV money. nothing is going to keep the old firm here. while they are here they must be forced to comply with the other clubs and not be able to strip mine what they view as a condemned business. they have to be brow beaten, so does the SFA. Can they be tho ' dont know who holds all the aces the OF with TV money chasing them everywhere or ten breakaway clubs if their is that many, trying to organise a fledgling league , agree with your sentiments we should at least try i just dont think the outcome will be as clear cut as we would like it to be . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Albert Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 If someone set out to entrench OF dominance they could not have done a better job than the SPL 1 and 2 proposals. My understanding is the revenue share for first and second is unchanged but the rest is split between 18 rather than 10 clubs. The fact that 3 out of 10 (in practice 3 out of 8) of SPL1 may be relegated makes it much less likely that any team wil feel able to have ago at the OF - every non-OF club will set out to avoid the risk of relegation as first priority. In addition, such a high risk of relegation will make it more difficult for the non-OF teams to compete in the one area they have generally been more successful than the OF - developing and bringing in youngsters. The SPL model seems to be that maximising revenue for SPL clubs in aggregate is the prime objective (seemingly oblivious to the fact that higher revenues have been accompanied by financial disaster for the most part). Scottish football would be much healthier with lower aggregate revenues more evenly shared. And the poster above who mentioned that Setanta reported during 2005/06 that viewing figures for Hearts games were higher than for OF games was correct. In fact recent weeks is a small indication of the effect of even a hint of more competition in th league. I would never normally be interested in watching non-Hearts games involving the OFbut have recently become an interested observer. Well done Hearts for getting to the heart of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasman Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The only problem I see with that is...... Who would suffer most from no TV deal - the OF or the rest ? And if no deal is agreed - can they set-up their own deals and leave the rest even further behind ? No one team can set up their own TV deal that involves any live, or recorded, match action. The team they're playing against has rights as well, and could veto any proposed deal. If we're playing Rangers at Ibrox, they have no right to film Hearts, and "sell" the footage without our permission. Obviously we'd charge them what we can for that permission! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Celtic have lost 25k on gates this season - what happens if they started screening their home games live in Scotland as well? The average cost of a ppv per game would have to be ?25 to compensate. Then what about people that share out their log ons go to the pub. If all the clubs got together and told them to do one what is the worst that could happen? This is crazy. What you are saying is the Old Firm have no say in SPL decisions. They have to agree or we (the other ten) leave. That's it. The worst thing that can happen is the breakaway league is not recognised. The Old Firm are not getting to feck but we are. They remain a part of the SPL. The SPL represent Scottish football in Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinmaroon Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 This is crazy. What you are saying is the Old Firm have no say in SPL decisions. They have to agree or we (the other ten) leave. That's it. The worst thing that can happen is the breakaway league is not recognised. The Old Firm are not getting to feck but we are. They remain a part of the SPL. The SPL represent Scottish football in Europe. Just wonder what would happen if the SFL accepted the breakaway clubs? We could end up with the Uglies and collection of lower division clubs joining them for the money to make up a league. On TV this week - Annan v Rangers and Celtic v Peterhead - crowds pathetic, but all the Bigot Brothers' supporters tuning in! Mind you, who but an Ugly is going to watch that poo!!! I repeat, the OF need the rest of us more than we need them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 This is crazy. What you are saying is the Old Firm have no say in SPL decisions. They have to agree or we (the other ten) leave. That's it. The worst thing that can happen is the breakaway league is not recognised. The Old Firm are not getting to feck but we are. They remain a part of the SPL. The SPL represent Scottish football in Europe. I don't think what is being hoped for is a situation where the OF have no say in Scottish football. Not sure of the thoughts of the poster you were replying to, but in my case I think as member clubs the OF are entitled to a say, but their say should be no more important than the say of the remaining clubs, however many that number may be. At the moment we have an SPL that is set up and dictated by the whims of the OF, it was they that wanted the voting to be on an 11-1 basis, so anything that benefited other clubs could immediately be vetoed by them and therefore not introduced. Do you think there is any remote semblance of fairness in that, or has it all been set up for self protection. I have no objection to the OF having a say in how football operates going forward, but their say should be no more important than what any other club think. The majority required should therefore be changed to a much more sensible number, I would suggest 8-4 under the present set up, 9-5 if we moved to a 14 team league (that way even if it is a change the OF don't particularly like it would still have to appeal to sufficient clubs to make it worthwhile implementing). Any changes at present need Rangers and Celtic to agree, and the only thing they will agree on at this time is going to a 10 team league because it means more money for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMA MAROON Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Just wonder what would happen if the SFL accepted the breakaway clubs? We could end up with the Uglies and collection of lower division clubs joining them for the money to make up a league. On TV this week - Annan v Rangers and Celtic v Peterhead - crowds pathetic, but all the Bigot Brothers' supporters tuning in! Mind you, who but an Ugly is going to watch that poo!!! I repeat, the OF need the rest of us more than we need them. Considering the fact that the SPL was created so that the top teams could screw the teams in the lower leagues it would be hysterical if at the end of the day they ended up joining the Old Firm and screwing us over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djf Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 IMA MAROON raised a good point when he said perhaps every team should negotiate their own deal. As far as i'm concerned league finishes shouldnt come into share of TV money. I'm assuming teams are rewarded with prize money depending on league finish right? TV money is negotiated by the SPL as a package for all the teams and should be split equally so all sides see the benefit of the package the league has negotiated fairly. It should either be this way, or each team negotiates their own package individually. Not the *******ized system we currently use. That drop between 2nd and 3rd place just shows exactly how over a barrel the non OF clubs are btw. I'd imagine the OF couldn't believe how pathetic we are when that was agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 IMA MAROON raised a good point when he said perhaps every team should negotiate their own deal. As far as i'm concerned league finishes shouldnt come into share of TV money. I'm assuming teams are rewarded with prize money depending on league finish right? TV money is negotiated by the SPL as a package for all the teams and should be split equally so all sides see the benefit of the package the league has negotiated fairly. It should either be this way, or each team negotiates their own package individually. Not the *******ized system we currently use. That drop between 2nd and 3rd place just shows exactly how over a barrel the non OF clubs are btw. I'd imagine the OF couldn't believe how pathetic we are when that was agreed. The thing with that djf is the two major losers in that could end up being the OF. All clubs could set up deals, but if the deals that Rangers and Celtic set up were heavily loaded in favour of themselves, as per the present pooled fund, then all it needs is for the other clubs to say no, and both halves of the OF are fecked. It doesn't matter if the proposed deals suit Rangers and Celtic, and the relevant TV company or companies agreed to it. For any match to be broadcast both competing clubs must agree, as The Gasman pointed out. You could potentially have a situation in the SPL where all clubs bar Rangers and Celtic could have TV deals in place, because all other clubs would set up sensible arrangements. Rather than going through all that fannying about all it needs is a much more sensible redistribution of the existing deal, but under the present set up the bigot brothers will never vote for such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Bundy 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? This is essentially what happened - TV has completely screwed up our game in line with all the other failings over the last 20 years with the OF at the centre of it all. Sky reduced their offer of rights - SPL chairmen gambled by knocking it back believing our game was worth more than that - Supply & Demand highlighted we had ideas above our station. The BBC picked it up for a fraction of the ?45-50 million Sky had been rejected on whilst non-OF chairmen moved to resign from the SPL over the same-said 11-1 voting system but this was put to bed with us receiving slightly more of the TV pie scraps from the OF (this was a mistake and where clubs should have stayed strong) Recession kicks in and Setanta go to the wall with ESPN, SKY, BBC all having share of our game - The OF were hacked off with the rest of us over one of the Setanta renewal deals that never seen the light of day with us again having knocked back some Sky deal. I completely agree with the sentiment that we need to stick 2 fingers up at the OF, not even so much to do with TV monies as I believe non SPL clubs have scored own goals with this, but more with the voting system which means we cannot change anything without their approval which is a farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo 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 know the thread has moved on a little but I have to reply at this comment and to others who have went off on a tangent regarding the competitiveness of the league. At no point did I say or imply anything like that PJ1. I was only ever discussing a TV deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 I know the thread has moved on a little but I have to reply at this comment and to others who have went off on a tangent regarding the competitiveness of the league. At no point did I say or imply anything like that PJ1. I was only ever discussing a TV deal. You might not have thought you were implying it Dazo, but you were. You were effectively saying that the TV deal had to be set up in a manner the OF found acceptable to them, and that we had to accept they were the major draw in any such TV deal. Agreement to such is displaying an inferiority complex, as has since been pointed out the highest viewing figures achieved for Scottish football on TV was when we were at the top of the league in early 2005/06. There is absolutely no reason for any non OF fan to think that such a situation couldn't be replicated going forward with a more competitive league. We are not and never will be subservient to that shower of shit, and the best way to show that is to stand up to them and challenge them, not cower back in fear of what might happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.