Congratulations to SPL chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who delivered a remarkable increase in the league’s TV deal with Sky and ESPN; £80m for five years until 2017. The one concession he had to trade, was the possibility that he had to subjugate the link between sporting meritocracy and the commercial imperative.
When news of the deal broke yesterday a Rangers fan was quick to suggest that Sky and ESPN would not have bid on such terms if they had any doubt Rangers would survive in the league, however, later details emerged to prove the exact opposite. The entire deal is dependent on a clause assuring Celtic play Rangers four times each season. If Rangers were eliminated from the league, or even if they failed to earn enough points after an administration penalty to finish in the top six after 33 games, the TV deal becomes invalid.
While this clause was crucial in Doncaster getting his deal it does nothing for the sporting integrity of the competition. It has been five years since Rangers finished outside the top two in the league but if they go into administration, or worse, a fire sale of assets and a point deduction is likely.
The league has now introduced a contractual ceiling on whatever penalty would be applied to a financially deviant club, irrespective of the offense. Doncaster will now also set off to find a sponsor to replace Clydesdale Bank, promising the TV exposure his deal with Sky and ESPN provides. By extension, not only will TV income be dependent on four Celtic-Rangers games per season, so too will league sponsorship income.
Can you imagine the goings-on if Rangers enter next season in administration, with a 10-point deduction and a skeleton squad? Beating Rangers, making it less likely for them to reach the top six, could cost each team in the league millions. Clubs have a clear incentive to ensure Rangers are in no danger of finishing outside the top six.
Neil Doncaster, who is likely to be financially incentivised to deliver TV money, is a member of the SPL board who would decide whether or not to admit a prepack company into the league in the event of an existing club failure. His partiality would be compromised by this deal, so too would other board members from clubs without the liquidity to cope without TV or sponsor income.
While TV broadcasters have a clear financial incentive to lobby for whatever it takes to keep Rangers buoyant, the financial incentives will touch everyone with their snout in the trough, and that includes non-TV media and referees.
This is a dreadful deal as it inserts a clause which compromises the sporting integrity of the competition. Can you imagine giving the team talk to a club, safe from relegation, about to face a Rangers team needing a win on game 33? What about the referee who makes a mistake in Rangers favour, late in the season, under similar circumstances? How would Sky, ESPN and others frame the debate in the event of Rangers going into administration?
I can understand why Sky and ESPN want clause, but the rest of us might as well chuck it.
1,088 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- »
Paul67, Bhoyy, Ghirls
not read back but think you may be all be missing something here
a) the agreement that was already in place had 2-3 years to go
b) the SPL will already have a fair idea that THEY will need liquidate and start as a Newco
c) if this happens THEY will be out of the SPL for at least 3 years
d) negotiating a new deal while THEY are out of the SPL would be very difficult
e) the new deal ensures the other clubs at least get something while THEY are out of the SPL
Something that would be interesting to know would be how THEY are defined within the new SKY, ESPN contract – if my hypothesis is correct the definition would need to somehow encompass the new legal entity Newco as well as the current one – otherwise the contract will anyway become null and void as soon as they liquidate
Clearly if THEY do survive via admin then all the ethical sporting issues identified by Paul67 come into play immediately
VertWolf
Jude and bobby, we are lost at the moment scouting wise, look at the Swedish connections and it can only be big johan behind most of them as he is connected to AIK Stockholm.Hoovield,Bangurra, friends with big danny, danny friends with lustig, thats our scouting at the moment.
Jude, punt him to wee ally!!! you mean sleekit wee ally don’t you?
KTF
TCC
Whats that?? Ah waant wan!!
ThisistheOne
The only Hallmark trite scenic backdrop and bubble words
this merry christmas apportioned to the beggars can mostly
be found in them large bargain bins that are mostly. Positioned
in early January attractiveness those of spendthrift sensibility.
See you at the Sales…Sally.
HH
Carrigan
The very one.
Sky arts 1 channel 244,Thin Lizzy
Any idea that we should play the hun anywhere outside of Scotland should be met with wailing and knashing of teeth?
What good can come of it? any financial gain would be short term as the headcases and numpties would have a field day on foreign..well fields.. Plus we play them more than enough.
A couple of pre season friendlies against decent opposition must surely be better value. Anything else will come to no good.
Don’t do it Celtic.
A wee Q fur ewes. How do think wee Fergie would handle this. Sit back and watch things chugg along or go for the jugular?
Lest We Forget
bsr
Lest we forget Mk11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv6qCSXmp04
jude
The Offensive Behaviour Bill Game.
It’s Christmas !
The headless chicken Broonie is off tae Geordieland ! Just watch them drap doon that league.
Spend the money wisely, LawLess. ( You never know.)
We are married to Huns in an unholy alliance..horrible but true.
A big proportion of our value is tied up in the vile enmity shared ( unequally) between the clubs… The fact is on a commercial level two horse races make more sense than a one horse race.
The Huns and Cetic ony hope of escape to a better league will be via a double ticket…
How would Fergus deal with this? He, like all other extremely successful businessmen, would take the best option that would have the least effect on his bottom line, without hesitation, por cierto
CultsBhoy hates being 2nd says:
23 November, 2011 at 00:18
———————————–
Utter nonsense.
We have a far better chance of moving into another league without the huns. Their fans are notorious throughout Christendom for the deeds that they do. Nobody wants them but they appear not to care.
BOBBY MURDOCH’S CURLED-UP WINKLEPICKERS, 22:43
Indeed, and off to see Mr Sadowitz next Wednesday. Did he tell the Maddy McCann joke?
Reilly
Id love it to be as you say but it just isn’t.. CFC could have buried Hins by now if they felt it was the best thing to do but they know…
No OF means no Tv deal.. No tv deal means no SPL
No SPL without entry elsewhere leaves CfC as Harlem globetrotters playing ridiculous meaningless friendliest forever…
if celtic and rangers get the lions share of any sky, espn deal, and rangers drop down to div 3.
would the other teams get theyre share between them.
that would mean more money for other teams .
might help take the sting of not playing them plus the fact that other teams will get a shot at europe.
got to try and put alternatives out there.
St J, North Stand
http://www.pkc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7DC2990D-BB26-4CBB-8B1D-EA31CABA874E/0/09082609406.pdf
team for later today, lads ?
FF
AM VW DM BEK
JF BK KSY JL
AS GH
huvnae heard re injuries so
dunno if above works
Did you guys read the Amendments to the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill ?
I’ve just gone over this and I can barely believe some of what is in it. I would like all of you to read this, to examine it carefully, and to circulate it and highlight the sections I am about to go over with you. I mean it. I think this is important.
First, Patrick Harvie’s reviews are horrendous. They will replace the phrase “hatred of, or stirring up hatred against”, which is fairly straightforward and although open to interpretation is not quite a catch-all. What he seeks to replace it with is a BIG catch-all. The phrase is to be replaced with “stirring up, malice and ill-will towards”, which for me is a catch-all and a half. How do you judge a song based on it’s “ill will” towards someone?
Secondly, McLetchie. This sonofabitch wants “proscribed organisations” named in the law, and references to them made illegal. He also wants to outlaw “glorifying or celebrating events involving the loss of life or serious injury.” Which is intended, one would presume, to grab the Aberdeen fans singing about the Ibrox Disaster. Yet I am fairly sure the entire Rememberance Day “celebrations” are, in some way, connected with loss of life or serious injury, as are numerous national anthems ….
Thirdly, and finally, we come to Cunningham, and her own proposals, which I am astounded at. Astounded.
Having outlawed freedom of political expression, she has inserted a specific clause to PROTECT SECTARIANISM. Yes, you read that right. To PROTECT SECTARIANSM.
You don’t believe me? Please examine the following section;
11 After section 5, insert—
<Protection of freedom of expression
(1) For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in section 5(5) prohibits or restricts—
(a) discussion or criticism of religions or the beliefs or practices of adherents of religions,
(b) expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse towards those matters,
(c) proselytising, or
(d) urging of adherents of religions to cease practising their religions.
(2) In subsection (1), “religions” includes—
(a) religions generally,
(b) particular religions,
(c) other belief systems.
That paragraph protects "The Billy Boys" even as "The Boys of the Old Brigade" is being outlawed. It also ensures that in the same football grounds where the Irish National Anthem might well find itself banned, you can unfurl a banner condemning Islam or taunting the Jews.
This is an APPALLING piece of legislative trash, and it belongs in the bin. Anti-Catholic hatred is LEGALISED in the same bill where celebrating Irishness is OUTLAWED.
The true face of the SNP is now revealed. It is sectarian and it is sick.
SPL solution to Celts playing their foes 4 times a season is simple – return to Top Ten league with no relegation or just one dropping out.
—
Rangers should get penalties for their financial cheating but I’m not interested in them getting relegated under Whyte for a season. The penalty should be the removal of titles won during Murray’s time due to this cheating. This is the only way to deal with the cheats from Govan.
Doncaster must have spoken extensively about Rangers and the tax issues during the deal. This stinks.
JF
you got a link for that one please ?
gracios amigo
:)
Top Corner:
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_Bills/Offensive%20Behaviour%20at%20Football%20and%20Threatening%20Communications%20%28Scotland%29%20Bill/b1s4-stage2-ml.pdf
Astounding. I am literally staggered at the nakedness of what is in there.
Oh by the way, there’s also a section which will allow “Scottish Ministers” to amend, extend and expand on that Bill any time they see fit without necessarily having to go through the complexities of a Parliamentary debate.
James Forrest:
It’s attrocious what they’re trying to push through. The thing is that if the other mob, instead of complaining about these new laws, see them as a set of laws set on penalising us they will vote the SNP in for years to come.
Salmond is not a dafftie.
It stinks.
Kevtic
The only way to deal with cheats is to strictly apply the rules as they would be to any other club. Any other solution would diminish Scottish football to ridicule.
reilly1926 says:
23 November, 2011 at 01:10
Cunningham has showed her hand with that section. Her own hatred got the better of her whilst writing it. That is sticking her brass neck right out there.
If we’re going to kill this bill, if we’re going to defeat this piece of trash, this is the gift we’ve been waiting for.
A so-called anti-sectarianism bill which attacks political expression but contains a SPECIFIC PROTECTION for anti-religious expression.
Massive, massive own goal. We need to hit her right between the ugly eyes with it.
JF, thanks for the link !
I am not in any way astounded as this is HOW THESE PEOPLE operate – it is NORMAL for them to twist and cannive – they have made a living out of this.
I mean, wee Paddy, what is he doing ? Swapping the word HATRED for the terms “malice and ill-will toward” ? Talk about deception ! Clever semantics and the SOFTENING of language is a prequel to rationalisation and the opening of doors to a free-for-all in terms of how government intend to operate.
Same same.
These poor folk will get a big shock one day and wake up to ask themselves “what the hell have i done ?” !
James Forrest is Lennon says:
23 November, 2011 at 00:57
JF – Agree with your outrage regarding this legislation and you quite rightly highlight some questionable areas, however the 3rd area you’ve highlighted is to protect freedom of religious expression, as requested by the RC Church. It doesn’t in any way allow the singing of TBB or any other sectarian song or shout.
I’m 100% against this legislation, but we need to ensure we are accurate in our arguments for the reasons, the 3rd point you raise is entirely inaccurate and I believe you’ve misunderstood what it says. Freedom of religious expression goes both ways, you can’t allow someone to express their beliefs freely and ban criticism of those same beliefs by someone else.That does not allow for anyone to be abused because of what they do or don’t believe ie TBB or FF or NPoR or ……etc
WE MUST FIGHT THIS RIDICULOUS LEGISLATION
hh
bjmac
Davie McCletchie
insert “glorifying or celebrating events involving the loss of life or serious injury”
like sending Edward home to think again, Davie boy ?
including those who fought and died for that ?
and we PAY you to do this job ?
Right, I have just re-read the entire original Bill and that paragraph by Cunningham appears to be in relation to online communications ….
I say again WHAT? Excuse me? Religious hatred online CANNOT be punished under the law but can be inside a football ground?
What does this bill actually DO? I say again, it PROTECTS SECTARIANISM under the banner of “free speech” whilst restricting political expression.
Whilst it does not mean that The Billy Boys can be sung in a football ground, it means Vanguard Bears have a free hand to write their bigotry and spread their hate. It actually ENSHRINES in law their rights to espouse anti-Catholic views and stir the sectarian soup.
Not, this bill has left the realms of potentially damaging and entered the land of potentially dangerous. The rhetoric of the SNP about tackling sectarianism is shown in that one clause to be a fraud. It has given license to the nutters to keep on telling like they think it is.
Bjmac:
See my post above for what that section actually does. But I think you have misread the terms yourself mate. It is quite specific.
Nothing covered in this Bill will restrict “expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse towards those matters.”
In other words, because it specifically protects online communications, I can write her about my antipathy for Catholics, my dislike for them, I can insult the Roman Catholic Church using language as inflammatory as I like and abuse its adherants to the fullest extent I can muster without actually calling for the physical annihilation.
It’s plain, and it is simple, and stated coldly and openly. I can express my hatred of Protestentism, Islam, Catholicism, Judaism and whatever else I like, under the banner of free speech. It puts into legal language that doing so is NOT a crime, whilst the bill seeks to define political expression AS a crime.
That makes a MOCKERY out of what the law was originally designed to do. It is disgusting.
JF
I am a practising RC, I hate this piece of legislation, however we must fight it with accurate and good reasoning.
This bill in no way allows for online sectarianism. The clause you refer to allows for freedom of religious expression eg someone could criticise the fact RCs believe a piece of bread turns to the body of Christ. That doesn’t mean they can call you a FB, it doesn’t in any way shape or form encourage or allow for expressions of a sectarian nature. IMO.
The bill is ridiculous enough without the need for us misinterpreting a perfectly acceptable clause designed for the freedom of religious expression. If not included there would be serious problems for most mainstream religions with some of their beliefs in relation to sexual orientation.
I am with you being entirely against the bill, this particular clause is not the issue – there is plenty other ridiculous stuff in it to go after.
hh
bjmac
for 10 years now we’ve been subjected to this stuff….
society is being PERMITTED and ENCOURAGED to go down the toilet
the proclamation of the WE ARE DOGS Gospel – i.e. “we can’t control ourselves”
well, it can get tae, as far as i’m concerned !! …
talk about Nazism !
the 1942 Wannsee Conference comes to mind
(aka Conspiracy starring Kenneth Branagh)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%282001_film%29
_________
Patrick Harvie
38 In section 6, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
bed-time
PURE RAGIN, btw
God Bless !!
:)
ragin at this …
__________________
Patrick Harvie
38 In section 6, page 5, line 9, at end insert—
( ) “Transgender identity” means any of the following—
(a) transvestism,
(b) transsexualism,
(c) intersexuality,
(d) having, by virtue of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (c.7), changed gender,
(e) any other gender identity that is not standard male or female gender identity.
James Forrest is Lennon says:
23 November, 2011 at 01:36
Hadn’t read this post when I posted my last one.
I will go away and read again, I still don’t think your interpretation is correct, surely even the SNP wouldn’t be that stupid. I will also seek legal advice.
Might be Thurs before I can get back. I have been working hard trying to get a meeting with my MSP re this bill. It is important we stop it, I want to make sure the arguments put forward are accurate, so if you email me at cqngolfclub@gmail.com I will respond via that if ok.
hh
bjmac