Copland bear 7,966 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Why is the sky deal all hush hush? Liewell should have been nowhere near the negotiations, why are we the paying customers not told what is in the deal? Time for them to put their great deal on the table, I for one would fight the spl all the way and try and break away from their enforced deal. They don't need us remember, give them nothing but another legal bill, the fighting fund is kicking about somewhere for that. We could sell our rights through the sfl to sky. An away season ticket on the box for £15 a month 5,000 subscribers is £900,000 and stadiums will still be packed, the sfl would be coining it in. Leave the spl to negotiate their own deal. WE DON'T NEED THEM and they know it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang2911 423 Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 i can't see Sky being interested in the SPL as it stands.A one horse race for another two seasons and no old firm games.So the only thing they could offer Sky for next season was a revamp of the other leagues to create some excitement and interest.Now they've got to say to Sky sorry all we've got is the same one-horse race again.Who wants to watch that?Thats my point exactly. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iang2911 423 Posted April 16, 2013 Author Share Posted April 16, 2013 I don't see how 12-12-18 would interest Sky or anybody else. Only 13% of supporters who voted in a poll said they wanted 12-12-18.Apart from the stupid split mid way thought the season nothing was really changing.Novelty factor if nothing else. It would be soemthing different for them to report on when talking about Scottish league....ok and laugh Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copland bear 7,966 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Sorry typing error, that is 5,000 subscribers at £15 per month would generate £900,000. I am sure we would shift more that 5,000 subscribers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reformation Bear 6,453 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I expect Charles and Jim T will surface in due course with their plans for Rangers media rights including TV. I don't know how long the current TV deal with Sky lasts for (and its related SFL impact). I thought it was for more than just this season though. Even so, the Sky viewing numbers for SPL games are dwindling as I understand it and with no reason whatsoever to believe they will not continue to dwindle even further, and the speed of reduction will accelerate. So you'd imagine that a renegotation of that deal in due course would mean less money for the SPL since to reflect the reduced Sky revenues.Question is, when the current Sky TV deal ends does that mean Rangers is entirely released from any league-related or SFA-related TV rights tie-ins? In other words is it a condition of our licence to play and / or of SFL league membership that a portion of our TV rights goes to the SFL? Is it the case that the SPL loses part of its hook on Rangers TV rights by switching to BT from ESPN next year (an SPL-only deal) and loses the rest of its hooks on Rangers TV rights when the Sky deal ends? At that point Charles can rightly insist that the SPL is to get no benefit from Rangers TV rights, the only issue being whether or not the SFL has a legal claim on some of Rangers TV rights and if it does whether the SPL then, somewhow, still has some access to those TV rights. If there are no TV rights tie-ins to our licence to play and our membership of the SFL, then it seems to me that Rangers would be completely free to cut whatever deals it chooses to cut directly with TV companies and teams we play so that the benefit goes solely to Rangers and whoever we are playing. And with Rangers world-wide supporter base and better use / quality of internet broadcasting RTV becomes much more of a money-spinner for Rangers. Even if some of the TV rights are for the SFL, then at least it means, I think, that no financial benefit whatsoever from Rangers televised games would go to the SPL. Of course, it would be a bit of a mess at the point Rangers is eligible to join whatever the top league will be because if joining meant assigning some of the benefit of Rangers TV rights to that league then the issue of what they get vs what we keep would be slap bang on the table again.It would be good if Jim T would be able to set out soon what the plans are for maximising the commercial value of Rangers' media rights. That would help add a bit more certainty about how this is all to work to the maximum benefit of Rangers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plan C 39 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 The difference in viewing figures without us in the league massive. Even in games not involving us, if the attached is true Sheep v Celtic last season seen 3 times as many viewers as this season. If there is 'scope' for increased revenue is there also scope for decreased revenue. Is it possible that the whole deal is related to viewing figures hence the secrecy?http://forums.scottishfootballforums.co.uk/index.php?app=core&module=attach§ion=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=2069 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copland bear 7,966 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Time we stopped these vultures feeding off us. Rip up their bloody enforced tv deal. Dungcaster and co see you in court. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsablueworld 42 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Thats my point exactly.glad we agree :-)Keeping us in the bottom league was the give-away to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Copland bear 7,966 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Sfa will still want their share of anything and everything. That's fair enough but to strike that deal O'Regan must go. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricksen92 459 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Said a few weeks ago in another thread its always been about getting the RANGERS tv rights. Nothing more nothing less. Its the only way they can get enough money from tv to keep them afloat. W.A.T.P. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon 1,727 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 As I said in a previous thread 2 or 3 weeks ago, a sky guy (high up) told me "what TV deal".Obviously yesterday's vote was all part of the jigsaw.High up eh? 4th floor in the call centre? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hubbard 280 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 if the SPL have a contract with the SFL for 3 years and have to pay over a £million a year to the SFL, then maybe they won't be able to pay that. That's why the SPL want a merger. They'll push for this anyway Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianb1547 3,767 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 As I said in a previous thread 2 or 3 weeks ago, a sky guy (high up) told me "what TV deal".Obviously yesterday's vote was all part of the jigsaw.thanks mate....that made me laugh so much Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsablueworld 42 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 did we not have to agree to sell our games to the SPL as part of a deal to get a licence?I thought it was only for one season and the SFL were paid around 1 million for them.If so, what's to stop Rangers from paying the SFL a similar amount to 'buy back' our tv rights each season then market them ourselves? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Fester 186 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I have to say it would explain what seemed like a huge over reaction from milne yesterdayThat's pressure bud pure unadulterated pressure. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,204 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 imo reconstruction was about the SPL putting together a package that would keep Sky on board while there was no old firm games.I don't disagree I'm just asking wrt SKY what is different now that reconstruction failed?We aren't any closer to the top leagueSky still has our TV rights anywayI don't see what difference failed reconstruction makes to the TV deal, however I completely agree the reaction of Thompson and Milne points to way more than failure to redistribute the wealth better.No one has yet been able to explain how the SPL teams could afford to lose approximately £300k each per year to subsidise the lower leagues, as was being put forward.Obviously there is something be it TV or major sponsorship that relied on reconstruction, I just don't see how it would make any difference to SKY. If we were to be "invited" into the second division then fair enough, but that wasn't the plan either. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cushynumber 25,178 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I don't disagree I'm just asking wrt SKY what is different now that reconstruction failed?We aren't any closer to the top leagueSky still has our TV rights anywayI don't see what difference failed reconstruction makes to the TV deal, however I completely agree the reaction of Thompson and Milne points to way more than failure to redistribute the wealth better.No one has yet been able to explain how the SPL teams could afford to lose approximately £300k each per year to subsidise the lower leagues, as was being put forward.Obviously there is something be it TV or major sponsorship that relied on reconstruction, I just don't see how it would make any difference to SKY. If we were to be "invited" into the second division then fair enough, but that wasn't the plan either. The number of games, the way the leagues were split and the subsequent mini competitions to me were designed to keep viewing figures up by creating some interest.This is pure supposition on my part but I get the feeling that Sky had given a tentative ok to that plan (or why the desperation to push it through?) but are not happy if things stay as they are and will pull the plug (hence Milnes breakdown on TV yesterday). I just can think of no other explaination that makes any sense whatsoever.I agree however - there are a lot more questions about reconstruction and what the real agenda was at that meeting yesterday than there are answers. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al 55 9,204 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 The number of games, the way the leagues were split and the subsequent mini competitions to me were designed to keep viewing figures up by creating some interest.This is pure supposition on my part but I get the feeling that Sky had given a tentative ok to that plan (or why the desperation to push it through?) but are not happy if things stay as they are and will pull the plug (hence Milnes breakdown on TV yesterday). I just can think of no other explaination that makes any sense whatsoever.I agree however - there are a lot more questions about reconstruction and what the real agenda was at that meeting yesterday than there are answers.Yes I suppose from SKY perspective its all about viewing figures, they may have been willing to give the SPL a chance to see if reconstruction improved the dreadful viewing figures.I suspect we will find out in due time. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londonderry_Bear 111 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 did we not have to agree to sell our games to the SPL as part of a deal to get a licence?I thought it was only for one season and the SFL were paid around 1 million for them.If so, what's to stop Rangers from paying the SFL a similar amount to 'buy back' our tv rights each season then market them ourselves?I had thought it was only this seaso as well, though according to this, and I know it's the rhebel, it's for 3 yearshttp://www.<No links to this website>/sport/football/football-news/sfl-chief-david-longmuir-trumpets-1427990 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsablueworld 42 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I had thought it was only this seaso as well, though according to this, and I know it's the rhebel, it's for 3 yearshttp://www.dailyreco...rumpets-1427990that's pretty clear then.Sure i recall Green saying he only agreed to a one year deal and was adamant that the SPL wouldn't get them again next season.Whatever's going on with our tv rights, there has to be more to the reaction of that vote yesterday.Milne looked shell-shocked. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
VERITAS VOS LIBREBETS 3,309 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 SHOW US THE FEEDS! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricksen92 459 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 Im pretty sure there was never any figures ,be that cash or time frame given out by the sphell when sky deal was done at the start of the season. Only thing was they got RANGERS games in the package. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornabear 6,186 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 thanks mate....that made me laugh so muchDidn't notice when I wrote it, no pun intended lol Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornabear 6,186 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 High up eh? 4th floor in the call centre?Not sure what floor he's on, but his Secretary answers his phone. simples!!!!!!! pun intended. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
savenosouls 97 Posted April 16, 2013 Share Posted April 16, 2013 I think if the TV issue is not cleared up - we should try and get a question raised whenever the 1st Rangers Shareholders meeting is - We should ask for clarification on who holds the tv rights for Rangers and for how long? Quote Link to post 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.