Hearts want a fairer split of SPL television revenue

[pettigrewsstylist]

No surprise to see that 1st and 2nd got the most while there's not a massive difference between the other 10

 

 

The distribution in places 1 and 2 tell you that this is a major reason why no one can challenge on the pitch,,this makes our game of no interest to anyone outside Scotland and therefore of no value in terms of TV purposes to anyone other than the armchair OF fans (this was obvious in 2003 when SPL tv was vetoed).

 

It also tells anyone with a brain that the uglies have absolultey no interest whatsoever in Scottish football in terms of competition for more attractive product or for the National team in terms of development.It also goes a long way to shaping the current environment where League 1 tems from England can double the other 10 SPL teams best player wages overnight and remove their talents from our product

 

In short unless we can encourage Scottish football to challenge the 11-1 voting situatuon on income change,,this reform is a smokescreen attempt to show appetite for change but is nothing of the likes and is wasted effort

 

They have never been weaker (the uglies),,,the time is now people.

[Currahee!]

Deportivo La Caruna fans banner says it all....

 

http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/current/?454-deportivo-fans-opinion-of-the-spl

[Dazo]

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

 

I am not saying it has to be that way at all mate and you seem to be looking at what I am saying far too deeply. I am not saying we have to accept anything and can happily tell the OF to GTF but this will lead to less TV money. You obviously disagree and you think facing that fact leads to a inferiority complex then not much else I can add.

[Al Bundy]

Deportivo La Caruna fans banner says it all....

 

http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/current/?454-deportivo-fans-opinion-of-the-spl

 

OMG - If that is not a damning indictment of our game, I don't know what is!!!!

[pettigrewsstylist]

OMG - If that is not a damning indictment of our game, I don't know what is!!!!

 

 

Topping et al if youre watching then use that link,,,you might just wake up and see beyond your next 3 yrs balance sheet

[pettigrewsstylist]

Deportivo La Caruna fans banner says it all....

 

http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/current/?454-deportivo-fans-opinion-of-the-spl

 

 

Can anyone with more expertise on a pc bring this to the attention of any/every paper in this country pse?????

[Currahee!]

OMG - If that is not a damning indictment of our game, I don't know what is!!!!

 

Just shows that the whole of Europe know what a shambles our game is.

[Currahee!]

Can anyone with more expertise on a pc bring this to the attention of any/every paper in this country pse?????

 

I think its in the Sunday Mail.

[Gods a Jambo]

Deportivo La Caruna fans banner says it all....

 

http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/current/?454-deportivo-fans-opinion-of-the-spl

 

 

Thats says it all really. This should be picked up by the media. Edit. Just saw your post above.

[davie1980]

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.

 

does anyone else think this statement stinks? we won't vote on this issue just now as we wont get the outcome we desire. how ******* undemocratic!

 

then again, up until the current government came in and vowed to serve exactly 5 years before the next general election, thats exactly how our democracy was ran... "we can't have an election just now...we're doing terrible in the polls"

[Gods a Jambo]

does anyone else think this statement stinks? we won't vote on this issue just now as we wont get the outcome we desire. how ******* undemocratic!

 

then again, up until the current government came in and vowed to serve exactly 5 years before the next general election, thats exactly how our democracy was ran... "we can't have an election just now...we're doing terrible in the polls"

 

 

History is littered with this.

[colinmaroon]

Deportivo La Caruna fans banner says it all....

 

http://www.arabtrust...nion-of-the-spl

 

 

 

 

It seems that the SPL website is almost frozen.

 

I can only assume that it's fans trying to send this link to Doncaster and Topping!

[colinmaroon]

Eventually got through and sent this brief email.

 

For the attention of Mr Topping and Mr Doncaster

 

 

If you want to know what?s wrong with Scottish Football, it seems the SPL is infamous, certainly in Spain. They are complaining about the promotion and power of two teams threatening to ruin the competitiveness of La Liga.

 

 

Please read this link:

 

 

http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/current/?454-deportivo-fans-opinion-of-the-spl

 

 

 

That is the problem with Scottish Football. It happened here years ago.

 

 

Regards

 

 

[redm]

Apologies if I've missed someone else covering this already in the thread but what's the background to this 11-1 situation? How did it come about that this was the agreed ratio for voting on broadcasting/media rights? It's absolutely incredible that the non-OF clubs would have ever agreed to this. Scandalous isn't the word.

 

I really don't buy the argument that the OF deserve a bigger slice of the pie because they're the biggest draw. The reason they're currently the biggest draw is partly because of arrangements like this. They might moan about the SPL not providing the sort of competition they'd like (rubbish - they'd HATE that) and making it difficult for them to do anything of note in Europe but everything they do is designed to keep the status quo as it is. I honestly can't describe how contemptible I find them and the whole set up, it just stinks.

[jamboinglasgow]

Deportivo La Caruna fans banner says it all....

 

http://www.arabtrust.co.uk/current/?454-deportivo-fans-opinion-of-the-spl

 

It was mentioned in small bits in the papers about this. But to me it is showing the elephant in the room that it seems is not really being discussed in league development, at least not by the main players proposing the 10 team league, that is there is zero competition in the SPL for the top spot outside the two. Here is a sad statistic, its been 25 years since a non-Old Firm team has won the league (Aberdeen in 1985.) Of those 25 years, ten times has a non-Old Firm team come second, of which it has only been once since 1995. Now the SPL was created in 1998, surely that says something. There has been 113 seasons of a Scottish league (in many forms,) of that 120 seasons, only 18 have been won by a team that is not Rangers or Celtic (the very first one was won by both Rangers and Dumbarton.) As a comparision, the Spanish league which is being seen as turning into a Scottish league has had 78 seasons of which 30 have been won by teams that are not Real Madrid or Barcelona.

 

The longest period in Scotland between non-old firm winners of the league is 28 years, we are 3 seasons off matching that.

 

Scottish football must change its view and relationship towards the old firm, when the old firm have not won everything their attendances drop, it gives other teams a chance. People like to say that we are a laughing stock in Europe because of the split but its because only two teams rule the roost, crushing competition and sitting pretty and the worst thing is that the media in this country just accepts it and even praises it, maybe once every so often giving a patronising pat on the head to another team that is doing well (like we have had recently) but never really pointing out that its men v giants and that is bad for Scottish football.

 

I have a good friend who is a Rangers fan and we often have heated debates about the old firm, he often says that the other clubs use the old firm to hide their short-comings and it is not the old firms fault for the state of Scottish football, and I guess there is a part where we may blame some of our short-comings on the old firm instead of ourselves, but to me there is no level playing field. As shown by this season, but sides of the old firm dont have to be great to sit at the top, both are poor this season, but it requires a team lower down to have an almost once-in-a-generation season to even come close to the top. I remember seeing a Celtic fan having a go at non-old firm fans claiming it is easy for one of us to win the league all you need is a bit of belief in yourself, clever marketing and a bit of luck, I wont repeat what I felt like replying to that guy. As I said to him, its easy being an Old Firm fan, if you dont win the league one season you know you have a pretty good chance to see them win the next, I may never see Hearts win the league despite being the third biggest team in Scotland. Thats what is so fundamentally wrong, for everyone outside the old firm it is the race to third place, its the best we can hope for, maybe occasionally we can have a go at second. But in 2005/6 when we tried to push for first (apart from self-inflicted wounds) it was still tough, and if we put ourselves in serious financial trouble to do it.

 

When will the issue of the elephant in the room actually be discussed?

[jamboinglasgow]

Apologies if I've missed someone else covering this already in the thread but what's the background to this 11-1 situation? How did it come about that this was the agreed ratio for voting on broadcasting/media rights? It's absolutely incredible that the non-OF clubs would have ever agreed to this. Scandalous isn't the word.

 

I really don't buy the argument that the OF deserve a bigger slice of the pie because they're the biggest draw. The reason they're currently the biggest draw is partly because of arrangements like this. They might moan about the SPL not providing the sort of competition they'd like (rubbish - they'd HATE that) and making it difficult for them to do anything of note in Europe but everything they do is designed to keep the status quo as it is. I honestly can't describe how contemptible I find them and the whole set up, it just stinks.

 

I was wondering this as well, I thought earlier last decade when there was open rebellion in the league with the other ten teams threatening to break away the 11-1 vote was one of the main issues. And this rebellion was resolved with a change to a 8-4 vote.

[Socrates]

I'm glad to see Hearts are actually raising some of the issues that need to be discussed as part of any reorganisation. Having a more competitive league is more important than the actual number of teams in it - for example, in the early 80s, a 10 team league worked well, because it was actually competitive.

 

The 11-1 thing works both ways - when the OF want things, they have to get just about everyone on board too, which is something that Hearts and some of the others with spines can exploit.

[Ben Dover]

Did the steering group ever sit?

It certainly doesn't look like it given the way the alleged members are now speaking about the proposals?

Also Doncaster came out saying there was broad agreement for the deal, which there CLEARLY wasn't

He has presided over a think tank that has ( allegedly ) sat for 8 months and produced ONE single proposal,

one that is possibly worse even than the staus quo !

If this was anywhere else bar a football organisation his position would surely be untenable !

 

I can see his MO though

Drop two sides from the SPL, share out the 10% they previously received ..................and then sail off into the

sunset to another CEO post claiming that the SPL clubs had a 10% rise in shared revenues during his tenior.

 

I had high hopes that he and Regan at the SFA might clear up some of the sh*t here, sadly I'm not so sure now

 

 

 

 

[Sydney]

Having a more competitive league is more important than the actual number of teams in it - for example, in the early 80s, a 10 team league worked well, because it was actually competitive.

 

 

Correct - the size of the league doesnt really matter. The competitiveness does. When we change to a 16/14/10 team league, I am willing to bet that Rangers and Celtic will still have bigger crowds, more money and win more and we'll play the same old teams week in and week out and we'll moan about the quality of the league.

 

The CL has messed up scottish football by paying enormous amounts (in scottish terms) to Rangers and Celtic, allowing them to spend more and more than the competition on players, and keeping themselves ahead of the pack. If we try to match them (ie 05/06 and 06/07) we get into HUGE financial trouble.

 

The EPL money (and it's drip feeding into the Championship) has also damaged our game, as players and managers go to England as soon as they can to get more money. There are 60 Scottish players in the English Championship and 19 in the EPL - there is more than 100 million pounds worth of Scottish talent playing outside our league. If you have the ability to play there, then why woldnt you go? The only clubs paying similar wages in Scotland are Rangers and Celtic.

 

Managers too. What could managers like Moyes, Coyle, or maybe even Darren Ferguson, have done with Scottish teams? Could they have built successful clubs like McLean and Ferguson?

 

The size of the league is not the root cause of our footballing ills. Changing it wont fix them.

[RussAsia]

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?

 

Can someone make up a table like this but for a 14 team top league.. Hopefully 14 teams is the way forward.. the split in tv money like the above table

[redm]

I was wondering this as well, I thought earlier last decade when there was open rebellion in the league with the other ten teams threatening to break away the 11-1 vote was one of the main issues. And this rebellion was resolved with a change to a 8-4 vote.

 

Given that the voting changes from 11-1 to 10-2 and then 8-4 for different issues you'd have to think that there was some sort of negotiation and debate about how voting should be structured. Like you say, I do remember some sort of discussion coming up around that time but I can't remember the details. I don't suppose it really matters now but it would be interesting to know just how the hell the other clubs managed to agree to something like this and put themselves in a situation which pretty much leaves them with no control whatsoever. What a bleedin pickle.

[Socrates]

Why do we need to give more television money to the teams at the top of the table? It shouldn't be about what's fair - it should be about what makes the league better, and taking money away from Celtic and Rangers, and giving it to the teams at the bottom end of the league would help to do that.

[Socrates]

Given that the voting changes from 11-1 to 10-2 and then 8-4 for different issues you'd have to think that there was some sort of negotiation and debate about how voting should be structured. Like you say, I do remember some sort of discussion coming up around that time but I can't remember the details. I don't suppose it really matters now but it would be interesting to know just how the hell the other clubs managed to agree to something like this and put themselves in a situation which pretty much leaves them with no control whatsoever. What a bleedin pickle.

 

The one good thing is that it means that a few clubs with a bit of spine, such as Hearts and Dundee Utd, can have quite a lot of influence, as the OF need to get nearly everyone on board to push changes through. This is fairly apparent from the trip to Lithuania - you wouldn't see Doncaster and Topping out there if they didn't need Hearts' vote. My own view is that Hearts should vote in favour of any changes that make the league more competitive, regardless of the size of the league.

[redm]

The one good thing is that it means that a few clubs with a bit of spine, such as Hearts and Dundee Utd, can have quite a lot of influence, as the OF need to get nearly everyone on board to push changes through. This is fairly apparent from the trip to Lithuania - you wouldn't see Doncaster and Topping out there if they didn't need Hearts' vote. My own view is that Hearts should vote in favour of any changes that make the league more competitive, regardless of the size of the league.

 

Have to admit that I'm genuinely very proud of the stance we appear to be taking. Vladimir is being extremely level headed about the whole thing and he's right up there with Thompson on the sensible approach front. The claims made by Smith and Lennon that the resistance from some other clubs was simply down to sour grapes doesn't hold much water (or any at all, really) when you actually consider what they're saying. There are some clubs talking sense here and I'm glad that mine is one of them.

 

As for what is and isn't fair, I really don't buy the reasoning that the OF deserve more money because of the cash they bring in to the Scottish game. Not for one second. They might bring money in but that's because we've pandered to them and put them in a position which enables them to do so. The status and financial limitations of non-OF clubs is what keeps the OF where they are and this won't ever change for as long as everything in the league is geared towards reinforcing their financial strength and keeping rewards for everyone else scaled down to size. It's a crock. Furthermore, they can only do what they do because we're around to play games against them and give them a league to participate in - they can't do any of this by themselves (I'd love to see them try, mind) and it's about time they acknowledged the role that the state of the SPL plays in their success.

[Ben Dover]

Can someone make up a table like this but for a 14 team top league.. Hopefully 14 teams is the way forward.. the split in tv money like the above table

 

 

I've not got time just now but obviously the % of cash given to places 15, 16 would then be shared amongst the remaining

14

Their combined take is currently 5% for arguments sake so it's not really a great deal more per club.

The greatest 'improvement' would be achieved by simply reducing the % given to teams 1 and 2 ( what a stitch up that was eh ! )

 

I would dare any member of RFC or CFC to go on Question time and try to defend those figures !

[Socrates]

Saw this explanation in the Scotsman. Given the source, it's entirely possible that it may be pish.

 

Any change to the size in the top flight, whether an expansion or reduction, requires a 10-2 majority, ie 83 per cent. Any change to the distribution of income needs an 11-1 vote (92 per cent). Most other resolutions, such as an earlier start to the season, play-offs and winter shut-down, can be passed with 67 per cent backing, an 8-4 majority.

 

Top priority for Hearts should be to get the distribution of income threshold reduced - as long as that is 11-1, the OF have everyone over a barrel. They don't care how unfair things look - their fans don't care - so they will never vote for more equal financing.

[Francis Albert]

Have to admit that I'm genuinely very proud of the stance we appear to be taking. Vladimir is being extremely level headed about the whole thing and he's right up there with Thompson on the sensible approach front. The claims made by Smith and Lennon that the resistance from some other clubs was simply down to sour grapes doesn't hold much water (or any at all, really) when you actually consider what they're saying. There are some clubs talking sense here and I'm glad that mine is one of them.

 

As for what is and isn't fair, I really don't buy the reasoning that the OF deserve more money because of the cash they bring in to the Scottish game. Not for one second. They might bring money in but that's because we've pandered to them and put them in a position which enables them to do so. The status and financial limitations of non-OF clubs is what keeps the OF where they are and this won't ever change for as long as everything in the league is geared towards reinforcing their financial strength and keeping rewards for everyone else scaled down to size. It's a crock. Furthermore, they can only do what they do because we're around to play games against them and give them a league to participate in - they can't do any of this by themselves (I'd love to see them try, mind) and it's about time they acknowledged the role that the state of the SPL plays in their success.

 

Unfortunately a comment by Jim Mclean summed up the attitude of far too many in the Scottish game. He said he didn't object to the OF getting a larger share of TV revenue because they deserve it as "our standard bearers in Europe". That coming from someone who took one of the smaller so-called provincial teams to the semi-final of Europe's biggest tournament.

Bringing money to the Scottish game? I suppose that means enabling them to buy up any promising Scottish player for half what they're worth.... for which many Scottish club owners would be grateful and cheerfully spout nonsense about it not being fair to stand in the way of them playing on the bigger stage and/or for their boyhood heroes.

[redm]

Saw this explanation in the Scotsman. Given the source, it's entirely possible that it may be pish.

 

Any change to the size in the top flight, whether an expansion or reduction, requires a 10-2 majority, ie 83 per cent. Any change to the distribution of income needs an 11-1 vote (92 per cent). Most other resolutions, such as an earlier start to the season, play-offs and winter shut-down, can be passed with 67 per cent backing, an 8-4 majority.

 

Top priority for Hearts should be to get the distribution of income threshold reduced - as long as that is 11-1, the OF have everyone over a barrel. They don't care how unfair things look - their fans don't care - so they will never vote for more equal financing.

 

 

That would probably involve some sort of wholesale change to the SPL constitution or something though, and I guess that's only an option if the whole shebang starts falling apart anyway. Sounds like the sort of thing that would only occur around the time of a league break-up or similar. Could be wrong there but sounds like that stuff is set in stone for now....

[Charlie-Brown]

Unfortunately a comment by Jim Mclean summed up the attitude of far too many in the Scottish game. He said he didn't object to the OF getting a larger share of TV revenue because they deserve it as "our standard bearers in Europe". That coming from someone who took one of the smaller so-called provincial teams to the semi-final of Europe's biggest tournament.

Bringing money to the Scottish game? I suppose that means enabling them to buy up any promising Scottish player for half what they're worth.... for which many Scottish club owners would be grateful and cheerfully spout nonsense about it not being fair to stand in the way of them playing on the bigger stage and/or for their boyhood heroes.

 

FA the whole thing is completely fecked up and these examples of 'reasoning' by many SPL Directors is beyond stupid or comprehension in my opinion. So many people are either beyond caring how retarded it is and some people even think it's not so bad .... iam just sick of it all. Too many clubs just care about their commercial revenues and pay lip service to supporters concerns. If they press ahead today with this 2 leagues of ten garbage then Iam fairly certain that's me had enough of their pish and whilst I'll never give up on Hearts the SPL can go screw themselves as far as Iam concerned.

 

If it goes back to 10 teams then I plan to respond with the following;

 

1. Only buy a category B season ticket to see the games that aren't televised. No point in me attending Category A games when I can watch all these at tynecastle on television and lets face it they care more about SKY/ESPN money than mine.

2. No more away games - the other SPL clubs can go feck themselves (I might sometimes break this rule say if hearts were going for silverware or an exciting young player was making his debut but generally speaking no go)

3. I would still go see youth / academy games when family circumstances allow.

4. I would still attend cup games as these aren't as fecked up as SPL games. At least they appear to have principles of fairness built into the competition rules.

 

I know this would punish Hearts to some extent but the SPL needs real radical reform not just tinkering or reversion to a failed format based on clubs greed and self interest.

[DETTY29]

That would probably involve some sort of wholesale change to the SPL constitution or something though, and I guess that's only an option if the whole shebang starts falling apart anyway. Sounds like the sort of thing that would only occur around the time of a league break-up or similar. Could be wrong there but sounds like that stuff is set in stone for now....

It's hard to disagree as the only clubs that can afford top lawyers to challenge anything are the OF.

 

As skint as Celtic claim to be, it looks like they are going to pay tens of thousands, if not more to get Lennon off, despite his prolonged disgraceful touchline antics being the worst I've ever seen in more than 30 years of watching footy live at games, or on the TV. Miles worse than WWenger, or even St. Martin who got away with murder in his time up here.

[redm]

It's hard to disagree as the only clubs that can afford top lawyers to challenge anything are the OF.

 

As skint as Celtic claim to be, it looks like they are going to pay tens of thousands, if not more to get Lennon off, despite his prolonged disgraceful touchline antics being the worst I've ever seen in more than 30 years of watching footy live at games, or on the TV. Miles worse than WWenger, or even St. Martin who got away with murder in his time up here.

 

 

See now, that confused me too - I thought you basically signed away your rights to external legal intervention when you signed up and sold your soul to the SFA? Or something along those lines...? For some reason I had it in my head that decisions of the SFA committees could not be subjected to judicial review. I guess not.

 

 

 

 

[Footballfirst]

Can someone make up a table like this but for a 14 team top league.. Hopefully 14 teams is the way forward.. the split in tv money like the above table

Here is the current distribution based on the SPL's stated combined pot of ?16M

1 4% 13.00% 17.00% ?2,720,000

2 4% 11.00% 15.00% ?2,400,000

3 4% 5.50% 9.50% ?1,520,000

4 4% 4.50% 8.50% ?1,360,000

5 4% 4.00% 8.00% ?1,280,000

6 4% 3.50% 7.50% ?1,200,000

7 4% 3.00% 7.00% ?1,120,000

8 4% 2.50% 6.50% ?1,040,000

9 4% 2.00% 6.00% ?960,000

10 4% 1.50% 5.50% ?880,000

11 4% 1.00% 5.00% ?800,000

12 4% 0.50% 4.50% ?720,000

-----------------------------------------

48% 52% 100% ?16,000,000

 

Here would be my 14 team alternative

1 4% 6.00% 10.00% ?1,600,000

2 4% 5.50% 9.50% ?1,520,000

3 4% 5.00% 9.00% ?1,440,000

4 4% 4.50% 8.50% ?1,360,000

5 4% 4.00% 8.00% ?1,280,000

6 4% 3.50% 7.50% ?1,200,000

7 4% 3.00% 7.00% ?1,120,000

8 4% 2.50% 6.50% ?1,040,000

9 4% 2.00% 6.00% ?960,000

10 4% 1.50% 5.50% ?880,000

11 4% 1.00% 5.00% ?800,000

12 4% 0.50% 4.50% ?720,000

13 4% 0.00% 4.00% ?640,000

14 4% 0.00% 4.00% ?640,000

------------------------------------------

56.00% 39.00% ?15,200,000

 

The 2 relegated teams would not receive any "merit" payment but the remaining 5% could be paid as a mix of parachute payments to the relegated teams or distributed directly to lower league teams

 

Only the top 3 would lose out, but those teams are normally less dependent on TV money than those further down the league.

[Charlie-Brown]

Here is the current distribution based on the SPL's stated combined pot of ?16M

1 4% 13.00% 17.00% ?2,720,000

2 4% 11.00% 15.00% ?2,400,000

3 4% 5.50% 9.50% ?1,520,000

4 4% 4.50% 8.50% ?1,360,000

5 4% 4.00% 8.00% ?1,280,000

6 4% 3.50% 7.50% ?1,200,000

7 4% 3.00% 7.00% ?1,120,000

8 4% 2.50% 6.50% ?1,040,000

9 4% 2.00% 6.00% ?960,000

10 4% 1.50% 5.50% ?880,000

11 4% 1.00% 5.00% ?800,000

12 4% 0.50% 4.50% ?720,000

-----------------------------------------

48% 52% 100% ?16,000,000

 

Here would be my 14 team alternative

1 4% 6.00% 10.00% ?1,600,000

2 4% 5.50% 9.50% ?1,520,000

3 4% 5.00% 9.00% ?1,440,000

4 4% 4.50% 8.50% ?1,360,000

5 4% 4.00% 8.00% ?1,280,000

6 4% 3.50% 7.50% ?1,200,000

7 4% 3.00% 7.00% ?1,120,000

8 4% 2.50% 6.50% ?1,040,000

9 4% 2.00% 6.00% ?960,000

10 4% 1.50% 5.50% ?880,000

11 4% 1.00% 5.00% ?800,000

12 4% 0.50% 4.50% ?720,000

13 4% 0.00% 4.00% ?640,000

14 4% 0.00% 4.00% ?640,000

------------------------------------------

56.00% 39.00% ?15,200,000

 

The 2 relegated teams would not receive any "merit" payment but the remaining 5% could be paid as a mix of parachute payments to the relegated teams or distributed directly to lower league teams

 

Only the top 3 would lose out, but those teams are normally less dependent on TV money than those further down the league.

 

The OF argue they need the greatest share of wealth possible to 1) give them the best possible chance in Europe which they claim earns all SPL clubs co-efficient points thus benefits the other SPL clubs in UEFA draws 2) They are disadvantaged in comparision to English Premier & Championship clubs in terms of TV money 'earned' so they need as much as possible to be able to compete & attract the best possible quality of player to the SPL.

 

Some people actually believe and accept this pesh and agree to go along with it.

[redm]

The OF argue they need the greatest share of wealth possible to 1) give them the best possible chance in Europe which they claim earns all SPL clubs co-efficient points thus benefits the other SPL clubs in UEFA draws 2) They are disadvantaged in comparision to English Premier & Championship clubs in terms of TV money 'earned' so they need as much as possible to be able to compete & attract the best possible quality of player to the SPL.

 

Some people actually believe and accept this pesh and agree to go along with it.

 

 

Because the automatic assumption is that they'll always win the league and will therefore always be representing us in Europe so it's pointless even discussing measures which consider any other scenario. For as long as things work this way there won't BE any other scenario to consider anyway.

 

ARGH. I really couldn't despise them any more than I already do.

[Socrates]

That would probably involve some sort of wholesale change to the SPL constitution or something though, and I guess that's only an option if the whole shebang starts falling apart anyway. Sounds like the sort of thing that would only occur around the time of a league break-up or similar. Could be wrong there but sounds like that stuff is set in stone for now....

 

Well, if it's set in stone, then I would hope Hearts will vote against any proposals for change, because as long as income distribution is decided on an 11-1 basis, things will never change significantly.

[Socrates]

The OF argue they need the greatest share of wealth possible to 1) give them the best possible chance in Europe which they claim earns all SPL clubs co-efficient points thus benefits the other SPL clubs in UEFA draws 2) They are disadvantaged in comparision to English Premier & Championship clubs in terms of TV money 'earned' so they need as much as possible to be able to compete & attract the best possible quality of player to the SPL.

 

Some people actually believe and accept this pesh and agree to go along with it.

 

The justification doesn;t matter. OF fans are not going to get on at their clubs to give more money to the rest of the SPL, so Celtic and Rangers will continue to vote in their own self-interest. My view is that it's pretty shortsighted of them to do so, but I don't expect that will change. That's why 11-1 needs binned.

[Socrates]

FA the whole thing is completely fecked up and these examples of 'reasoning' by many SPL Directors is beyond stupid or comprehension in my opinion. So many people are either beyond caring how retarded it is and some people even think it's not so bad .... iam just sick of it all. Too many clubs just care about their commercial revenues and pay lip service to supporters concerns. If they press ahead today with this 2 leagues of ten garbage then Iam fairly certain that's me had enough of their pish and whilst I'll never give up on Hearts the SPL can go screw themselves as far as Iam concerned.

 

If it goes back to 10 teams then I plan to respond with the following;

 

1. Only buy a category B season ticket to see the games that aren't televised. No point in me attending Category A games when I can watch all these at tynecastle on television and lets face it they care more about SKY/ESPN money than mine.

2. No more away games - the other SPL clubs can go feck themselves (I might sometimes break this rule say if hearts were going for silverware or an exciting young player was making his debut but generally speaking no go)

3. I would still go see youth / academy games when family circumstances allow.

4. I would still attend cup games as these aren't as fecked up as SPL games. At least they appear to have principles of fairness built into the competition rules.

 

I know this would punish Hearts to some extent but the SPL needs real radical reform not just tinkering or reversion to a failed format based on clubs greed and self interest.

And if they have an 18 team league, but nothing else changes? I think you are way too focused on the size of the league. 10 teams has produced an interesting league at times - say the early 80s, as has a bigger league in the 50s. The thing that they both had in common was that they were genuinely competitive, with a number of teams actually having a chance of winning the league.

[redm]

Well, if it's set in stone, then I would hope Hearts will vote against any proposals for change, because as long as income distribution is decided on an 11-1 basis, things will never change significantly.

 

Yep and if some sort of change is made to the league structure now, therein lies the perfect excuse not to bother reconvening to address other (i.e. finance) issues for another umpteen years.

 

Since when was that Vladimir so bleedin sensible...

[Francis Albert]

Snide little aside from Jim Traynor this morning about Vlad's desire for more equal revenue sharing on the lines "you can be sure he won't suggest anything that reduces Hearts share". So self interest is an OF prerogative, like so much else. And in fact Hearts are the only non OF club who have in the recent past benefited from the high share of the top two clubs (and the only one with any chance of doing so this season).

[JamboJohn1874]

Within the framework of the current TV deal as indicated earlier and a ?16m pot to be divided up, where is the sense in Hearts being part of a bigger SPL.

 

Adding 2 extra teams reduces everyone?s take from the pot even further, which could be quite substantial. Under many calculations already on this thread, league positions 3-5, which are normally where we end up, get paid say roughly 1.3 million. This I estimate must be close to 1/3rd of all revenue into the club:

 

10,000 season tickets at say ?200 each, balancing out platinum seats with cheap kids seats etc. This equates to roughly ?2,000,000

4,000 tickets sold on average per home game, which averaged out over a year, at discounted prices say ?20 each. This equates to roughly ?1,300,000

A very rough estimate of sponsorship, corporate, food, merchandise etc would suggest perhaps an additional ?700,000.

 

If we bear in mind As there is no way on this earth, the Old Firm are going to change the way money is being distributed without them getting exactly the same, this would be like Turkeys volunteering for Christmas. A bigger SPL is just insanity in terms of finances and would require Hearts to make even bigger cuts.

 

TV is not interested in unmarketable games so the chances of getting a better future deal from SKY/ESPN are not improved either.

 

Speaking personally, I remember the bigger 1st division we had and more importantly the reason this was replaced with a Premier League. This was completely full of meaningless games for most teams for most of the season and was a complete turn off for fans. People need to remember this. At least with only ten 10 teams you had a significant dogfight for relegation every year which kept fans coming in. As long as we get a proper reserve league back for blooding youth, expanding the SPL is just completely crazy so I would suggest we leave it or move to 10.

[Jamboelite]

Within the framework of the current TV deal as indicated earlier and a ?16m pot to be divided up, where is the sense in Hearts being part of a bigger SPL.

 

Adding 2 extra teams reduces everyone?s take from the pot even further, which could be quite substantial. Under many calculations already on this thread, league positions 3-5, which are normally where we end up, get paid say roughly 1.3 million. This I estimate must be close to 1/3rd of all revenue into the club:

 

10,000 season tickets at say ?200 each, balancing out platinum seats with cheap kids seats etc. This equates to roughly ?2,000,000

4,000 tickets sold on average per home game, which averaged out over a year, at discounted prices say ?20 each. This equates to roughly ?1,300,000

A very rough estimate of sponsorship, corporate, food, merchandise etc would suggest perhaps an additional ?700,000.

 

If we bear in mind As there is no way on this earth, the Old Firm are going to change the way money is being distributed without them getting exactly the same, this would be like Turkeys volunteering for Christmas. A bigger SPL is just insanity in terms of finances and would require Hearts to make even bigger cuts.

 

TV is not interested in unmarketable games so the chances of getting a better future deal from SKY/ESPN are not improved either.

 

Speaking personally, I remember the bigger 1st division we had and more importantly the reason this was replaced with a Premier League. This was completely full of meaningless games for most teams for most of the season and was a complete turn off for fans. People need to remember this. At least with only ten 10 teams you had a significant dogfight for relegation every year which kept fans coming in. As long as we get a proper reserve league back for blooding youth, expanding the SPL is just completely crazy so I would suggest we leave it or move to 10.

 

 

We turn over 10m a year the TV money does not equate to that % therefore Hearts have already said that this isnt the most critical element for them its about the product being sold to the customer.

 

However others feel different and they rely heavily on the cash from TV so nothing changes and were back to a s***e league of 10.

[johnjl]

Within the framework of the current TV deal as indicated earlier and a ?16m pot to be divided up, where is the sense in Hearts being part of a bigger SPL.

 

Adding 2 extra teams reduces everyone?s take from the pot even further, which could be quite substantial. Under many calculations already on this thread, league positions 3-5, which are normally where we end up, get paid say roughly 1.3 million. This I estimate must be close to 1/3rd of all revenue into the club:

 

10,000 season tickets at say ?200 each, balancing out platinum seats with cheap kids seats etc. This equates to roughly ?2,000,000

4,000 tickets sold on average per home game, which averaged out over a year, at discounted prices say ?20 each. This equates to roughly ?1,300,000

A very rough estimate of sponsorship, corporate, food, merchandise etc would suggest perhaps an additional ?700,000.

 

If we bear in mind As there is no way on this earth, the Old Firm are going to change the way money is being distributed without them getting exactly the same, this would be like Turkeys volunteering for Christmas. A bigger SPL is just insanity in terms of finances and would require Hearts to make even bigger cuts.

 

TV is not interested in unmarketable games so the chances of getting a better future deal from SKY/ESPN are not improved either.

 

Speaking personally, I remember the bigger 1st division we had and more importantly the reason this was replaced with a Premier League. This was completely full of meaningless games for most teams for most of the season and was a complete turn off for fans. People need to remember this. At least with only ten 10 teams you had a significant dogfight for relegation every year which kept fans coming in. As long as we get a proper reserve league back for blooding youth, expanding the SPL is just completely crazy so I would suggest we leave it or move to 10.

 

It's not just about the short term though. The old firm benefit most from any changes and have done for the last 30 years minimum. Without going into it too deeply the gap financially between the uglies and everyone else is getting wider and wider.

 

I'm not saying ran tic are earning more money I'm saying they are earning more in comparison to everyone else and always will BUT until that gap is reduced Scottish football will always be (for the most part) shite.