ayrmad Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Indeed it is! Our TV deal's in the bag: http://www.thesun.co...in-the-bag.html THE SPL was last night on the brink of clinching a new £13million-a-season broadcast deal. But it won't be officially signed until just 24 hours before Saturday's big kick-off. Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell was in London yesterday with SPL counterpart Neil Doncaster putting the finishing touches to the contract with Sky and ESPN bosses. Talks were ongoing last night about the length of deal, with suggestions it might be five or SEVEN. It's understood Sky will show 30 matches per season and ESPN 35, with the new Rangers being shown live a minimum of 15 times in Division Three. The SFL have negotiated a £1m deal for those rights, leaving around £12m to be shared among the Premier League clubs. The proposal will now to be put in front of the SPL chairmen at a meeting on Friday, where they are expected to vote it through on the same day that Charles Green's new Gers are finally handed SFA membership. Is it Bart Simpson that carries out the SFL negotiations? Are we to believe that new Rangers is worth 1/3rd of SPL games? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Nederlander Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 The SFL have negotiated a £1m deal for those rights, leaving around £12m to be shared among the Premier League clubs I guess its been discussed elsewhere but £1m seems a but cheap considering the deal hinged on SFL agreement - I'd like to know what price the haggling, if there was any, started at !? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Is it Bart Simpson that carries out the SFL negotiations? Are we to believe that new Rangers is worth 1/3rd of SPL games? No, you are to believe that a total of 30 SFL clubs including The (new) Rangers are worth £1million per season for the minimum of 15 matches that will be televised LIVE from their leagues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEADOWXI Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I think you underscored him tbh. Score reduced from 10/10 as follows; Paying Black £7K a week in SFL3 is stupid, this acknowledgement reduced score by 0.5 as paying Black £7K a week anywhere is nuts. A further point deduction was given to the claim that they are being more realistic as the team bus was seen at the Macdonalds at Forfar after the game, changed days fom the Dunblane Hydro. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I guess its been discussed elsewhere but £1m seems a but cheap considering the deal hinged on SFL agreement - I'd like to know what price the haggling, if there was any, started at !? I'd like to know if baubles were included in the negotiations, not heard much about the baubles since the SFL vote. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adundeemonkey Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 13m/yr over 5 or 7 years? That's a shocking deal. I'm still to grasp why the SFL key go of the tv rights to sevco games for 1m when cockwomble said the tv deal would go down to 3m without sevco in SPL or Div1. unless of course he was talking shite, but obviously he would never do that..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Does anyone know what happened to Daniel Day Lewis, I heard he had a cracking left foot, or would that exclude him from signing for Sevco? Are we still on the religious troll propaganda thread? I thought this might be relevant...... I heard Jim Baxter was a left footer, and he got a game now and again for the auld deid Rangers. If the rump of the auld Rangers support is concentrated in Sevco, they might be a wee bit unbalanced, with a preference for the right touchline. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTaxMan Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I guess its been discussed elsewhere but £1m seems a but cheap considering the deal hinged on SFL agreement - I'd like to know what price the haggling, if there was any, started at !? Think the £1 million might be on top of the crumbs previously trickling down to the SFL clubs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Think the £1 million might be on top of the crumbs previously trickling down to the SFL clubs. The crumbs don't count. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) 13m/yr over 5 or 7 years? That's a shocking deal. What school taught you to read!? That school you were taught at have much to answer for. "£13million-a-season broadcast deal." Comprende? Edited July 31, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I think £2m for the SFL would have been a fair compromise. I'll just have to hope £1m is for baubles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adundeemonkey Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) I also wonder if Celtic will have to start having home games televised. It's about time they had to deal with the consequences of tv coverage like the rest of the SPL clubs and not just take the benefits. Edited July 31, 2012 by adundeemonkey 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeHectorPar Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 In the bar last night with an Oldco fan, first chance for an indepth discussion; Been punished enough - 10 Point deduction - Well no this means you finshed 2nd instead of 2nd. Been punished enough - Were relegated twice - Well just what the f**k, not relegated at all, liquidated and not voted back to SPL and then elected to SFL. Been punished enough - Banned from Europe - Well no just do not qualify for Europe as failed to tick the boxes in regard to filing acounts (my argument that I am banned from the Olympic 100m by the IOC rather than being unfit and not qualifying went done badly) Green has a point it is bigotry against Rangers that means we are not in SPL - Well no, if you had paid your bills you would still be in SPL is the first fatal flaw in that argument. Its all the b*****d Lawwell - No its all the failure of Murray /Whyte to run a business properly and the rest of the board letting them. I gave him a denial rating of 8.5/10 May send an email to Fat Sally hoping he will support my desire to run in the 100m, I want to do it, it is my right to want to do it, who are these faceless people denying me what I believe is my right to compete in any competition I want whether it is fit and proper that I am there. I have heard this is the tyoe of campaign he is willing to support. I suggest you contact this guy. http://www.scottishlegal.com/index.asp?cat=NEWS&type=Commercial#41323 NEWCO RANGERS ‘COULD TAKE ENGLISH LEAGUES TO COURT’ “Newco” Rangers could take the English Football League (EFL) and the English Premier League (EPL) to court for orders forcing the Scottish club’s entry to domestic leagues south of the border, according to a competition law expert. Advocate Eoghainn Maclean believes the Ibrox club would have a “good prospect of success” in the Court of Session of overturning football's “anti-competitive practices”. He said: “Essentially, in competition law, Rangers is a business undertaking and should be free to provide its services as a football club to the buyers of such services anywhere in the UK. “The buyers are, principally, the organisers of domestic football league tournaments, who distribute shares of revenue in return. “EFL & EPL are cartels that abuse their dominant position on UK football markets through rules which exclude clubs that do not play their home games in England or Wales.” Rangers’ case would be founded on two pillars of UK competition law, which are applied in accordance with EU law and are directly enforceable by individual undertakings in the ordinary courts, Mr Maclean explained. The first is the prohibition against agreements, or concerted practices, between undertakings or decisions of associations of undertakings which substantially restrict competition within the UK, under chapter I of the Competition Act 1998. The second, the advocate stated, is the prohibition against abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position on a market which restricts competition on that market or another directly affected market, in the UK or part of it, under chapter II of the 1998 Act. Case law has already established that clubs in a professional football league and the bodies that run them are “united by such economic links” as to be regarded as “collectively dominant”. Mr Maclean said: “It seems plain that the EFL & EPL are collectively dominant in the UK on the market for the provision of the services of organisation and promotion football league tournaments, on which they purchase the services of professional clubs, in exchange for shares of revenue, made up, principally, of broadcast income. “The ‘restriction of competition’, under the first prohibition, and the ‘abuse of the dominant position’, under the second, of which the EFL & EPL are guilty is horizontal market sharing. It is the splitting up of markets on geographic bases, so as to eliminate competition between football undertakings in different national territories. “The EFL & EPL’s rules, along with those of other football bodies such as SPL, SFA, FA, UEFA and FIFA, effectively limit Rangers to playing all their domestic football only within the territory in which they play their home games, namely, Scotland. “That is a hard core competition abuse and Rangers would have a good case in principle. “Success in national courts in competition cases challenging sporting organisations is, by no means, unprecedented. The Bosman case is a prime example.” Mr Maclean, who has recently given a series of talks to a range of bodies on the implications of competition law to the Scottish and English football leagues, also cited the case of Hendry v World Professional Billiards & Snooker Association, 2002 ECC 8, in which Scottish snooker star Stephen Hendry and others challenged a WPBSA rule preventing them from taking part in any snooker event not sanctioned by the association. Seven-time world snooker champion Hendry wanted to set up rival tour events and his argument was founded on the same pillars of UK competition law. Following a long trial before the English High Court, he won on all grounds. The advocate added: “Since Bosman, FIFA & UEFA have repeatedly lobbied for EU legislation and, latterly, non-binding declarations that the splitting of domestic football into national territories within the EU is, nonetheless, compatible with competition law. They have been consistently refused. “What, probably, stopped both Rangers and Celtic taking this issue to court in the past, were the rules in FIFA’s, UEFA’s and the national associations’ constitutions which prohibit clubs from taking action against any football bodies in the ordinary courts. “While Rangers were competing at the top level in Scotland and trying to be competitive in Europe, with all the expenditure on players, staff and everything else that that required, they may have considered the risk was simply too great. “Now that they are out of Europe for a number of seasons and have been banished to the Scottish third division they have little to lose and may have much to gain by finally taking this competition case to court.” Seems like he is trying to prove he is an even bigger fud than Di Stefanny. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 If we get this TV deal signed and sealed, then it's another step on the road to a bit of long term stability, and we can think even more about football, playing football, supporting our teams, and less about Sevco, the fall-out from Sevco, and armageddon scenarios. We could argue all day long if the deal is good, but the bottom line for me is that (once more), Sky were in the box seat and the SPL were in no position to play hard ball. It was the same when Setanta went tits up... The SPL needed Sky to deliver a face-saving deal. Same scenario again. After this Sevco clusterfcuk and acts of utter bawbaggery from the suits in charge of our game, Sky were once more in the driving seat, with the SPL scrambling to jump into the back seats of the car... trying to avoid it speeding off into the sunset with them left behind greetin' on the side of the road. If this steering committee get a deal done, let's move on.... to serious reconstruction talks in partnership with the SFL, SFA, Sky, Sponsors, Clubs, and supporter reps. Oh, plus of course, let's strip those oldco titles and cups, and amend the record books accordingly. (IF the prima facie case investigation throws up the verdict most of us think it will). Then we can properly move on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayrmad Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I suggest you contact this guy. http://www.scottishl...ommercial#41323 Seems like he is trying to prove he is an even bigger fud than Di Stefanny. I hope they're successful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fife Saint Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 So, Sky don't do walking away? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I also wonder if Celtic will have to start having home games televised. It's about time they had to deal with the consequences of tv coverage like the rest of the SPL clubs and not just take the benefits. Dumb and Dumber - i am referring to your posts. The quicker the schools go back the better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adundeemonkey Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 What school taught you to read!? That school you were taught at have much to answer for. "£13million-a-season broadcast deal." Comprende? Funnily enough, when i went to school the symbol '/' stood for per. So 13m/yr means 13m per year. Maybe they didn't cover those sort of things when you went to school, or maybe you are just thick. But who am i to speculate which one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 On a positive note, I see Charlie has a new suit, from the pictures during his "interview" at Brechin on Saturday. I hope he paid for that from his own pocket ...........or is it a "company suit"? Mibbe there are investment funds coming in. Things are looking up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itwiznaeme Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) Funnily enough, when i went to school the symbol '/' stood for per. So 13m/yr means 13m per year. Maybe they didn't cover those sort of things when you went to school, or maybe you are just thick. But who am i to speculate which one. Give it up. You have shown yourself to be either illiterate or just plain stupid. Your attempt at smart remarks will not save the day for you. Edited to add: You may be both. Edited July 31, 2012 by Itwiznaeme 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.