Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=2069

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 league

Sky still has our TV rights anyway

I 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 league

Sky still has our TV rights anyway

I 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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 years

http://www.<No links to this website>/sport/football/football-news/sfl-chief-david-longmuir-trumpets-1427990

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 years

http://www.dailyreco...rumpets-1427990

that'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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 12 May 2021 17:00 Until 19:00
      0  
      Livingston v Rangers
      Tony Macaroni Arena
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...