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
- ...
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- ...
- 26
- »
Without the hun, I expect the songs debate would quickly become a thing of the past, who on here would see the english having a problem when their only objection disappeared long before we were even eligable to join them, eh ?
Two years to resign from scotland, the hun go to the wall, theres no more retaliation, the Celtic can get on with what we want, watching good football singing about our team and thre ballads of yore.
South Of Tunis says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:25
‘Apricale ——
Hot and very wet .
Seriously heavy rain .
Rain laden with sand from the Sahara —– stains everything red .’
Aye well the sun is scorching the grass over here so GIRFUY.
Those Sahara sands sometimes reach the south of England.
There’s a theory that that is how foot and mouth got here in the last outbreak.
Joe Filippis Haircut says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:28
Don’t know what Doncaster could do? If Sky come with a deal that says Celtic v Rangers 4 times a season (and I can see why they would want to guarantee that)… would you knock it back and take far less cash (or no deal at all)to take that clause out?…
philvisreturns says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:36
He says ‘Hearts with a project…’ are worth £25m. What on God’s Green Earth does the ‘with a project’ part mean?
There are questions that will never be answered…..like….”Top Cat” or “Boss Cat”?
Chief executive Neil Doncaster commented on the new deal:
“Sky Sports and ESPN are two of the biggest names in sports broadcasting and the SPL has enjoyed an excellent relationship with both broadcasters over the course of the current contract, a period which has seen a 28% increase in viewing figures.”
“Old Firm involvement had to be guaranteed, but that’s been the case for a number of years. It’s the case with all of the major sponsorships we enter into.”
HAD TO BE GUARANTEED, Tells us everything we need to know.
Anyone know the percentage attendances have dropped by to compare it with the increase in viewing figures. HH
Too Gloomy on here
Sir Paul
Contract is signed..and sealed..
We must learn tae Live wi’ it.
Case Closed.
Ah am no a Guy who likes tae bang his heid ain the Wa’!
Kojo
dirtymac – He says ‘Hearts with a project…’ are worth £25m. What on God’s Green Earth does the ‘with a project’ part mean?
I dunno but can only imagine the awesome speech he’ll give to commence ‘Project Arcturus’, as I’m sure it is known:
They will tremble at the shound of our shilence. Gentleman, we shail into hishtory! (thumbsup)
Sandman Is Neil Lennon,
If Paul67s analysis is anywhere near correct, then I think our only way of showing our disgust is this “shun” you mention. I wonder what SKY/ESPN will say to empty grounds? It wouldn’t make for good TV, which seems to be the be all and end all.
Celtic_First says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:04
Sandman
You haven’t addressed this point.
The Celtic board, looking at the thing only with the pragmatism you suggest, would surely have concluded that, while a lack of derby games would lead to league income being down, there would be a freer run at the much bigger carrot of Champions’ League income.
==============================================
It’s not a point needing addressed.
In the mindset of a Plc that bigger carrot is but a gamble each year. A gamble. Gambles do not current economic models make safe. It is not even a concern when looking at the long-term security offered by the TV monies which are the only show in town.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:07
Sandman,
the board have made their choice by backing this agreement, the PLC will have to explain their approval to the customers whom I expect will cost more that the £2M a year from the telly. When making such decisions the PLC require to identify the best way forward that includes short/long term loss scenarios, they have taken the long term loss as the least threatening. I expect the support will provide contrary evidence.
This deal keeps lawwell’s bonus on track.
================================================
It’s only black and white that counts. The only thing in black and white is the deal. The support always come second to the interests of the company.
It’s not what we want but the board did the only logical thing in the circumstances which would stabilise shares and market confidence in Celtic Plc.
If they took the emotional road, demanded footballing retribution fo the Huns sins at the cost of millions of TV money, where exactly would that leave us?
Sure, it would have been good rhetoric but financial incompetence.
You might not like the way the banks are behaving these days but would you refuse to pay your mortgage and have your family go homeless on point of principle?
What does it achieve? In this case, market bewilderment and Celtic as a business out on a shaky limb.
The board are hapless cohorts in the bigger picture. Their hands are tied. They either took the deal or gambled Celtic’s future.
I repeat, fanpower is the only way to hurt the rest and keep Celtic ambitions aimed high. But would the fans not travel? Knowing it is the only real damaging weapon in the arsenal?
It’s unprecedented. Time will tell.
31003
It was all about money
When the BBC bought the rights to Hanna-Barbera’s most popular long-running Bilko-riffing battle of wits between a bunch of wisecracking cats and the long arm of the law set on Precinct 13 (as in Assault On) in the early 1960s, they had somehow overlooked the fact that Top Cat shared its name with a popular brand of cat food. As they weren’t allowed to give any form of even unintentional or accidental promotion to any commercially available product, this presented something of a problem. And their ingenious solution was simply to change the name.
This was easy enough to implement when it came to continuity announcers and Radio Times billings (although they don’t seem to have managed to persuade the various manufacturers of tie-in merchandise to follow suit), but the whopping great onscreen captions in the middle of the animated opening and closing titles announcing that this was Top Cat and certainly not Boss Cat were a different kettle of fish. The even more ingenious solution was simply for someone wearing a blindfold to hack the offending frames out with a blunt pair of scissors.
As a result, the opening titles ran through their usual sliding-down-a-limousine-and-yanking-a-coin-on-elastic shenanigans up to the point where the wheeler-dealing feline sat down at a restaurant table and tucked a napkin into his waiscoat, upon which it immediately and crudely cut to a specially made caption card, featuring our hero in a generic pose and the legend Boss Cat in cartoony 1960s lettering on a blue background, omitting his theft of a workman’s lunch pail and hightailing it in a taxi with the show’s logo superimposed.
Meanwhile, the end credits were even more ridiculous. This time, the removal of the superimposed caption not only led to a jump cut in the changing-into-nightwear action, inexplicably lurching from his snapping on of eyeshades to slamming the lid of his trashcan home down on himself, but also in the musical accompaniment, jumping jarringly from that jazzy trumpet voluntary instrumental bit straight into the middle of another lyric. In fact, not even as neat as jumping into the middle of a line; it literally cackhandedly edits into the middle of a word (“-verything! He’s the most tip-top, Top Cat!”). Never mind the supposed mass confusion over that inaudible “providing it’s with dignity“/”bromide it gets whipped in the tea” line – this was the real point of confusion for any youngsters watching Boss Cat. Well, apart from the fact that the song, and all of the dialogue in the show, continually referred to one Top Cat.
Eight out of ten owners’ cats clearly didn’t prefer Top Cat to other leading brands, as they seemed to cease trading some time in the 1980s, upon which the BBC promptly purchased a set of shiny new unedited prints. But did this mean that Boss Cat became lost in some sort of popular cultural ether? It’s likely that the edited versions were all binned, and quite rightly so you may think. But don’t you feel just the slightest tinge of nostalgia for those ridiculous edits and that risible caption card? And what do you call him?
the internet
clanmalirtim says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:36
Funny you mention that, i once took the wife to Glasgow for her birthday. ‘Conveniently’ we played them at Ibroke that wknd and I managed to get my hands on a couple of tickets. So her birthday present was a trip to Ibrox!!
We beat them 1-0 that day with a deflected John Hartson goal. It was fantastic! You couldnt hear them singing at all. Great renditions of “we can see you sneaking out!!!!” towards the end!!!
The wife will never ever forget the Celtic fan in the full white forensic suit. Still talks about it!!!
Big thanks to the CSC round the corner from the Thistle hotel (out the doors, turn right, then right again- wee pub down that road on the right) who gave us a lift on the bus.
Spearman 13.38 Fella its like selling your soul to the Devil how much is yours worth ? why would anyone in there right mind spend there hard earned income to watch a league were two of the teams are treated differently from the other eight? at the start of the season before a ball was kicked only four of these teams can achieve a place in the top six as Rangers and Celtic will be guaranteed a place.How could that guarantee be achieved without cheating ? also if Rangers go bust and re -emerge as newco Rangers in order to satisfy the TV deal they would have to re enter the SPL not as it should be in a non corrupt system the bottom league.Now lets assume Newco Rangers are in the SPL with a team of young boys as they would have no funds how can they be guaranteed a place in the top six ? there is only one way and its called cheating.Doncaster has either not thought this through or he is prepared to turn a blind eye so Spearman they may get your money but they certainly wont get mine. H.H.
Paul67
Is it possible that inbuilt is a clause that takes account of them going bust and having to reform, which would allow Celtic to renegotiate should such an event take place?
I may be both naive and stupid but I simply cannot believe that the Celtic board woukld sell us out in this way.
If I’m wrong then I don’t think turning our backs on Celtic is the way forward. However, it would and should result in a return to the car park.
Parkheadcumsalford says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:49
=====================
Yep. My point. Fill Parkhead, travel in Europe. Show up the SPl for the skank-fest it is and expose their monkey-footed handshakes the only way the rest of the world will really notice.
Board statements mean something only to the fans. Empty stadia around the country draw popular media attention. Celtic support not travelling? Unknown. A phenomenon? And then the questions start and the panic begins.
bournesouprecipe says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:43
Too Gloomy on here
BSR’s picture makes me and will always make proud to be a Celt. We seem intent on here today of withdrawing support and hurting Celtic – giving up season tickets / stop going altogether. We are punishing ourselves for others illegal practices and apparent let off. The board know our thoughts on our club I do not believe they will let us down. KTF
I think there is a bit of water to run under the bridge yet.
I am more interested in how the courts react.
If the Scottish courts react like they did with Neil Lennon´s aggravated sectarian assault charge then Rangers will be in a very strong position for the foreseeable future.
It will then be interesting to see the knock on effect that the Scottish courts decision to pardon Rangers FC has on the British economy. This is a cornerstone in George Osborne’s fiscal policies that the government are pursuing. The treasury has clearly stated how much it MUST raise. The fallout will keep political and financial commentators busy for weeks. That is what any billionaire would be more concerned about just now than any executive toy like a football club or a football league. It will also show that the government has no control over it´s own legal system and it´s ability to raise revenue. The legal precedent set will encourage the criminal element to invest heavily into football as it will effectively become a legal vehicle for laundering money.
So I am still waiting on the fat lady singing and I am not yet prepared to accept that Rangers protection racket has the power to manage to pull this coup off.
If they do and how this impacts on the Government, HMRC, The economy, UEFA the ECA the SFA the SPL and Celtic shall be far more riveting fayre than anything Scottish football will ever be able to muster.
I think the TV deal is an indication of wishful thinking from those not in a position to influence. It helps Rangers´s survival prospects there is no doubt about that. Is it enough we will have to wait and see.
The Neil Lennon court case cannot fill anyone with hope but dashing Celtic and Celtic fans hopes compared with their masters is another thing entirely. The SPL has often compromised it´s integrity. I am reminded of Alex Mc Leish when at Hibs and Frank Sauzee Hibs captain maintaining that they would rather finish 3rd and qualify for the Uefa cup than risk a CL qualifier than finishing ahead of Rangers. Not a peep from anyone. How many times has the team that finished in 7th garnered more points than those teams in 6th and 5th position ?
So we have been cooperative to this joke of a league for a good few years now. Nobody imho can act surprised to what we are now seeing. Our only concern is if our PLC are an integral part of this or not. We have been led to believe that we are perennially weak against all that we have to encounter but this CONVENIENT assumed position has now developed into a case of if you fly wi the craws you get shot wi thum …
In this age of austerity it might be well worth it to see the mask slip. If the chain of command from the courts all the way down to Celtic PLC are orientated to keep Rangers alive and kicking with some kind of token punishment adopted to appease.
So until the fat lady sings I still think it is possible to hold fire on this. When Fergus Mc Cann spoke about the power of a Celtic fan holding up his baby and shouting “Fergus Celtic´s youngest shareholder” he also spoke eloquently about it being our identity and how important that is.
If our identity is to be shifted from being Celtic fans believing in fairness and justice for all to that of living our lives as the perpetual pantomime victim and paying heavily through the nose for that abuse then the Scottish game for me is a bogey.
Remember Glasgow Utd anyone ?
Hail Hail
knoxy2000 says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:51
Was at the same game myself, was during the white wash! Happy times indeed.
The shun?
In the ole gazebo it’s the 24/7 rumspringa…
I have been on the excellent RangersTaxCase blog making very similar points Paul67:
jocky bhoy says:
“I remember Celtic coming 5th in a 10 team league (coincidentally at a time when we were on the verge of going bust and Rangers were signing “international superstars”).
Remember Liverpool? England’s then most successful team by a country mile. Remember them coming 7th? Heck can you remember them winning a league? That was a generation ago! That would have been unthinkable to anyone watching in the 70s and 80s.
So, sorry, for me its NOT a “given” that in ANY fair sport that one team would automatically be assumed to always be top 6. Not my team or any other.
(A Poster) is right to wonder what the contract says – we don’t know. As indeed we didn’t know previously, which (AN Other) suggests is “immaterial”. That may be right, those contracts have expired but was any of this a factor in say extending the league to suit Rangers in their (in)famous UEFA final year? We don’t know.
(A Poster) suggests the contract might be worth £16m per year for the SPL but that it might include clauses reducing the overall league money based on where either of Celtic or Rangers be outside the top 6 (reducing the Glasgow “big” derby games) or even relegated. There would in that case a possible conflict of interest in playing the final game or two where a club might actually lose money by winning a game. I think we would all agree that would be a terrible state of affairs.
(A Poster) – you say this would be “a simple clause to protect the Sky membership” – who is protecting the integrity of the game?
I’m in a business where I deal with performance related contracts and I don’t think a throwaway line by one of the saleguys – I assume Donnington has a bonus scheme relating to league profitability or revenues? – that shows the contract revenue is subject to risks outside of the sellers’ contol should be swallowed without a murmur.
But hey, maybe that’s just 27 years of doing business in sales…”
I should have pointed out that maybe the SPL can guarantee Rangers don’t drop below 6th. But that might be though of as paranoid….
The wife will never ever forget the Celtic fan in the full white forensic suit. Still talks about it!!!
That guy goes on our bus. Celtic daft!
LB
Sandman Is Neil Lennon says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:50
‘If they took the emotional road, demanded footballing retribution fo the Huns sins at the cost of millions of TV money, where exactly would that leave us?
Sure, it would have been good rhetoric but financial incompetence.’
No one is demanding retribution.
All we want is that a newco huns is not allowed straight into the SPL.
Only a hun or an idiot would describe that as retribution.
Others can decide for themselves which category you fall into.
sorry last paragraph above should read
If our identity is to be shifted from being Celtic fans believing in fairness and justice for all to that of living our lives as the perpetual pantomime victim and paying heavily through the nose for that abuse so that the baby´s identity is compromised but not the value of his share in Celtic then the Scottish game for me is a bogey.
Hail hail
The TV deals should have been broken into chunks like the EPL and others do. The SPL have basically said to ESPN and Sky: give us some money and then decide between yourselves who shows what and when.
What should have happened was:
Lot 1: All Celtic Away inc Ibrokes, but except v Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Motherwell
Lot 2: All Rangers Away inc Paradise, but except v Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Motherwell
Lot 3: Celtic away to Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Motherwell plus some pash
Lot 4: Orcs away to Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and Motherwell plus some pash
Lot 5: Couple of token home Celtic games plus lots of pash
Lot 6: Couple of token home Orc games plus more pash
Lot 7: Dunfermline v St Johnstone.
They should then have said that only one bidder can show games from any single package, i.e. Sky can’t show Orcdom v Celtic and ESPN Dunfermline v Celtic – both would belong in Lot 1’s bid winner.
Lot one would have two games with 700k viewers, as would lot 2. Both would have games mainly in excess of 150k viewers and both would comprise a package of around 12 games each.
Lots 3 and 4 would regularly fill up with 150-250k games and would also comprise around 12 games each.
Lots 5 and 6 would have mainly 50-100k but a handful of 150ks (Celtic v Hearts I would imagine having decent viewing potential) and each would comprise around 8 games each.
I would envisage both Sky and ESPN to have a bid war for packages 1 and 2 and also to a lesser extent, packages 3 and 4. I would stipulate that no single holder can have all 4 (thus marginalising one broadcaster).
Beeb Alba would obviously have to be paid to pick up Lot 7 and the Beeb/STV would likely go toe-to-knee with Sky/ESPN for Lots 5 and 6.
Why does this not happen?
Sandman..,
“The support always come second to the interests of the company.”
A very dangerous strategy for and company with a customer based business, your answer to CF talks about gambling, this IMO is the biggest gamble they have ever made bigger even than champions league qualification and could be their last.
Ah well, that is me failed my final audition for the weakest link.
What does ‘Acoustic ‘mean Paddy? I need an answer – says that Anne Robinson.
“It’s something for hitting cattle”! says I.
Ernie
exactly.
The law of the land should be held up not changed for preferential treatment.
The laws of the game under the auspices of UEFA the ECA the SPL and the SFA should not be held up.
Hail HAil
sorry above should read should be held up not changed
Hail Hail
bournesouprecipe – If I owned a cat I would call it Chairman Miaow.
If I had a dog I’d call him Douglas Barker. (thumbsup)
Spearman says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:38
Joe Filippis Haircut says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:28
“Don’t know what Doncaster could do? If Sky come with a deal that says Celtic v Rangers 4 times a season (and I can see why they would want to guarantee that)… would you knock it back and take far less cash (or no deal at all)to take that clause out?… “
No he should say “in all likelihood it will happen, based on past history, but we can’t guarantee that under the current league split system. THe only way we can guarantee it is to put to a vote of the members that we reduce to 10 team league, each playing every other team home and away”, if it’s passed we can definitely guarantee 4 Glasgow Deries. Otherwise we can’t guarantee it – it’s probably, but not guaranteed”.
bournesouprecipe says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:50
Fan bloody tastic
That question has stopped me from working for over 40 years now………just trying to work it all out. You’ve answered the burning question. I’ll have to find a job now…..for what its worth….he was always Top Cat to me…..job centre….here I come
Of course should read “each playing every other team home and away TWICE”
I once had a parrot called Gregory Peck.
But he kept smart-mouthing me.
Turns out parrots can’t take a punch. (thumbsup)
CelticFirst 10:57
Underneath this is I believe are two factors
A feeling that Rangers have cheated Celtic and the game for a numbet of years.
Absolutely no admission by them and their wide support of any wrongdoing and more importantly contrition over it, hence the feeling that they are free to do what they like at our expense.
Until something is done to address these feelings there can be no acceptable solution.
There is a good/ethical good guy v bad /unethjcal guy.
Embdy know if the Sky deal was up for renewal just now? Looks like a quick backdoor deal to save the hun from being relegated/demoted to me.If thats the case Celtic and PL have been complicit in a deal with the devil.
dirtymac says:
22 November, 2011 at 13:59
Post of the day. Very funny.
philvis
Cool, Celtic Cats.