ayrmad Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In it's true that SPL are paying SFL £1.2M for TV rights (either per year or over 3 years) then... should the SFL's distribution model not be altered... these would be annual pay-outs to clubs: If deal for £1.2M per season... ... £66,000 to SFL1 clubs ... £39,600 to SFL2 clubs ... £14,400 to SFL3 clubs If deal for £400k per season ... £22,000 to SFL1 clubs ... £13,200 to SFL2 clubs ...... £4,800 to SFL3 clubs Of course they should be altered, £4,800 for an SFL3 club is a joke, this is a lost opportunity for the smaller teams, £30/£40k a season could have dramatically improved things at the diddier diddies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leepylee Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Oh yes it is! Hi boys and girls, I'm rangers. I'm trying to find my glorious trophy winning years can you help me look ? Audience : " THEY'RE BEHIND YOU " 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In it's true that SPL are paying SFL £1.2M for TV rights (either per year or over 3 years) then... should the SFL's distribution model not be altered... these would be annual pay-outs to clubs: If deal for £1.2M per season... ... £66,000 to all SFL1 clubs ... £39,600 to all SFL2 clubs ... £14,400 to 9 SFL3 clubs ....£1.08m to 1 SFL3 club Due to a quirk in the rules (that no-one has written yet!) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 He was maybe using predictive text on his mobile and was trying for HIgh-fives I think it much more likely that Jagsman was spot on when he called him (Leggo) an "illiterate fucking idiot". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnesTON Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Sevco will get their membership, i just can't see the SFA etc not letting it happen. They've left it so late that to try and get another team in would cause chaos again. My concern is that the SPL and SFA will 'deal' with Sevco and allow them not to face sanctions on second contracts, any punishment being levied against RFC (IA). They won't allow them a licence unless they accept all the points about accepting the consequences of their host club. I think we are seeing Regan and Co playing for their own futures. If there is a fudge then the groundswell against those in power would be too much for them to survive. The scenario of simply ignoring the past and allowing them to carry on without responsibility to any wrong doing defies the noises coming from the talks. At the start the actions were more about securing financial situations, now with the Sevco starting in the 3rd clubs will have already started to reappraise their financial burden and by the time Sevco returned to the top tier the perceived financial dependency would not exist. I feel the authorities feel their member clubs are aware of the financial situation and it is now more important to ensure there is a clear intent to show there is no magic bullet out of financial mismanagement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The apparent apathy to Olympic football, is only really apparent within these isles. The rest of the world take it very seriously indeed and to compare it to Tennis which was parachuted into the games very recently, is unfair, as Football has been an Olympic fixture for a very long time and pre-dates even the world cup as a worldwide football tournament. The fact that we appear to have picked a team more to suit ticket sales (see your point re Giggs), is just another indication of how we treat what the rest of the world take very seriously. I don't see how the SFA would be jeopardising their standing either, given that FIFA are on record as saying the independence of the 4 home nations is unaffected by any Olympic team. I believe one of the top womens players in Britain is Scottish and I wonder how she feels being denied the opportunity of a lifetime to represent her country at the highest level? I also think its ironic to talk about the SFA's 'standing in world football' given recent events!! I suppose it does allow the Scots to have their usual tournament experience of supporting whoever play us, as opposed to actually taking part. Olympic thread etc etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) They won't allow them a licence unless they accept all the points about accepting the consequences of their host club. I think we are seeing Regan and Co playing for their own futures.for them to survive. If there is a fudge then the groundswell against those in power would be too much The scenario of simply ignoring the past and allowing them to carry on without responsibility to any wrong doing defies the noises coming from the talks. At the start the actions were more about securing financial situations, now with the Sevco starting in the 3rd clubs will have already started to reappraise their financial burden and by the time Sevco returned to the top tier the perceived financial dependency would not exist. I feel the authorities feel their member clubs are aware of the financial situation and it is now more important to ensure there is a clear intent to show there is no magic bullet out of financial mismanagement. You are having a laugh? It was too much weeks ago and they're still there. Once the dust settles their arses will be toast regardless. Do you think they'll manage to shoehorn all these sanctions into the rules or will they just wing it as per? Edited July 27, 2012 by ayrmad 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotWeissEssen Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 In it's true that SPL are paying SFL £1.2M for TV rights (either per year or over 3 years) then... should the SFL's distribution model not be altered... these would be annual pay-outs to clubs: If deal for £1.2M per season... ... £66,000 to SFL1 clubs ... £39,600 to SFL2 clubs ... £14,400 to SFL3 clubs If deal for £400k per season ... £22,000 to SFL1 clubs ... £13,200 to SFL2 clubs ...... £4,800 to SFL3 clubs One thing to remember is that the SFL3 clubs will now be on television I would imagine they will make more cash from adverts round the ground and from adverts on their strips. I would imagine Rangers fans will moan at how little they will receive but their kit deal and shirt sponsor deal will be worth loads more if on the telly. An element that is often forgotten on the TV deal is that clubs in the SPL will receive loads more from having their adverts on the telly. (I would imagine the doomsday scenario that Doncaster/Regan fed involved a massive drop in sponsors money lost through not being on telly). You would think at hibs for example if they are even half way clever Crabbies would pay more cash based on TV appearances. The 1million offer for Rangers to be in the first division has to be the stupidest low ball bribe ever in the history of business. Irn Bru seem to have got a bargain deal out of the whole Rangers thing. (they deserve that as they seem to be a good sponsor) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Hi boys and girls, I'm rangers. I'm trying to find my glorious trophy winning years can you help me look ? Audience : " THEY'RE BEHIND YOU " BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, HIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 All this jiggerry pokery gives me the boak. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) In it's true that SPL are paying SFL £1.2M for TV rights (either per year or over 3 years) then... should the SFL's distribution model not be altered... these would be annual pay-outs to clubs: If deal for £1.2M per season... ... £66,000 to SFL1 clubs ... £39,600 to SFL2 clubs ... £14,400 to SFL3 clubs If deal for £400k per season ... £22,000 to SFL1 clubs ... £13,200 to SFL2 clubs ...... £4,800 to SFL3 clubs Seems like a raw deal for the SFL3 clubs given that it will be their games shown live this season. I'm sure the SFL1 clubs will be lining up to make it a fairer deal, given how unhappy they were with the SPL's inequity. Edited July 27, 2012 by craigkillie 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leepylee Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Now rangers have had to sell their own PANTS for cash http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/scottish/ Edited July 27, 2012 by Leepylee 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 One thing to remember is that the SFL3 clubs will now be on television I would imagine they will make more cash from adverts round the ground and from adverts on their strips. Some clubs might be able to sell more advertising boards... though they might struggle to justify ramping the prices up, compared to those sold prior to a fortnight ago... but most clubs will have already sold their pitchside advertising boards and their shirt sponsors for this season/beyond. Berwick certainly have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 (edited) Wow. And some above were slagging Celtic for 'taking credit' for Rangers' demise...talk about delusions of grandeur... I'm not saying that the groundswell of opinion - when based on concrete evidence I may add (i.e. statements from Doncaster/Regan and representatives of almost every SPL club) - wasn't crucial in the decision to banish Sevco from the top leagues, but it was hardly the only factor. And this site is hardly the reason that many thousands of season ticket holders chose not to buy their tickets this year before decisions were made. Come on, be realistic here. I think there has been a great deal of realism on this thread, admittedly interspersed with nonsense. IMO the biggest single factor in forcing the decisions on newco has been fan power. Social media has been at the forefront of information exchange and of making fans feel they were not acting in isolation. Some credit should be given to fan groups, such as at Aberdeen, but at the club that you and I support there was no concerted fan effort. The existance of social media has negated the need for meetings, demonstrations, etc. That doesn't mean that P&B can take all the credit for what has happened with 'Rangers', I can't recall any poster claiming it has. But it was, and probably still is, the site that has developed the discussion most and, along with the RTC and Paul McConville's blog, has been cited most often in the MSM. To that end I think P&B has played a major part in this matter. No group or individual is looking for credit for this, but equally claims like yours about 'delusions of grandeur' are insulting and uncalled for. Edited July 27, 2012 by Granny Danger 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madwullie Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The sfl clubs can't really moan considering they wanted sporting integrity to trump cash 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I have just wasted 2 minutes of my life reading that blog article and another 2 minutes attempting to make sense of what you and your m8 "Leggo" are attempting to say. Needless to say i gave up. Booooooooooooring. If Leggo used some facts in his ramblings instead of veiled references and inaccuracies then............. no, sorry, no point in continuing. Only good for comic relief. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SodjesSixteenIncher Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/leaguedivision3/4457052/Gers-set-to-get-nod-at-last-but-only-for-telly-game-at-Brechin.html Alan McGregor: “My club went into liquidation in June and I became a free agent.” 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Not disappointed as much as you appear to be delighted with it, which is just a tad sad don't you think? Anyway, this thread is not the place, so we will leave it there and agree to differ eh? Bye. See you over on the Olympic thread! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumper Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The sfl clubs can't really moan considering they wanted sporting integrity to trump cash ^^^^ still howling 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HibeeJibee Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The sfl clubs can't really moan considering they wanted sporting integrity to trump cash Come again? There's nothing incompatible with voting for sporting integrity, but also wanting decent value when selling a product. If SPL really is getting a £16M TV deal for 50 SPL + 15 SFL games and really is giving £1.2M or (particularly) £400k to SPL, it's perfectly valid for people to question that. It may even enter sporting integrity matters as an issue itself, given SPL and SFL club face each other in cups/compete for signings/etc. If SPL really is paying a pittance for SFL rights, whilst using them to safeguard a bonanza deal for themselves, that's verymuch questionable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.