SPL clubs give 'unanimous backing' to proposed reforms

[Blue Moon 1,118]

They're pushing for the changes now for a number of reasons. The events of last year and their own stupidity in dealing with the Rangers situation left them with some major issues in terms of their revenue from gates as well as their sponsorship and tv deals. They're now in panic and damage limitation mode and it also serves their agenda to try to push through changes while Rangers don't have any real say in the matter or any vote at the top table.

 

I agree with what you say, Zappa,about their stupidity causing them serious financial difficulties but how does this proposal solve these difficulties?

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

For this rconstruction to go through, they will need a TV deal in order to give clubs the monies they'd promised. CG has said he'll not sign any new TV deal leaving a problem as I see things.

SKY have had talks with CG don't forget. Interesting times ahead me thinks.

[Zappa 0]

I agree with what you say, Zappa,about their stupidity causing them serious financial difficulties but how does this proposal solve these difficulties?

 

It doesn't really. They appear to be gambling on trying to strengthen the top 2 divisions with this crazy 12-12 splitting into 8-8-8 being attractive to the broadcasters. Not only that, but as I pointed out a couple of months ago in an article I wrote for Gersnet, the SPL appear to be trying to strengthen themselves in numbers by taking clubs out of the SFL. When they stupidly ensured that Rangers were going to be playing in the 3rd division last summer, the SFL became a strong force in Scottish football again overnight and the SPL didn't like that one bit. The SPL was weakened and the SFL was strengthened. The SPL's plan (IMO) is really secretly about destabilizing and weakening the newly invigorated SFL while strengthening itself. It's not actually about trying to improve Scottish football.

[kuznetsov 0]

For this rconstruction to go through, they will need a TV deal in order to give clubs the monies they'd promised. CG has said he'll not sign any new TV deal leaving a problem as I see things.

SKY have had talks with CG don't forget. Interesting times ahead me thinks.

 

do you think green knows about the viewing figures showing us as having the largest viewing audience by some distance and do you think sky are also aware of this? i wonder if they mentioned it to peter liewell in their private talks.

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

do you think green knows about the viewing figures showing us as having the largest viewing audience by some distance and do you think sky are also aware of this? i wonder if they mentioned it to peter liewell in their private talks.

 

I do know for a fact CG & SKY have had talks. I do wonder where the money promised to clubs for reconstruction is coming from ? CG is on record as saying he'll not sign next season's SKY deal. What will SKY do then?

[kuznetsov 0]

I do know for a fact CG & SKY have had talks. I do wonder where the money promised to clubs for reconstruction is coming from ? CG is on record as saying he'll not sign next season's SKY deal. What will SKY do then?

 

is it upto him to sign it though? why are only liewell and doncaster having official spl relevant talks with them?

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

is it upto him to sign it though? why are only liewell and doncaster having official spl relevant talks with them?

 

depends how bloody-minded he wants to be I suppose. Can't see SKY televising a club's game against their wishes.

[kuznetsov 0]

depends how bloody-minded he wants to be I suppose. Can't see SKY televising a club's game against their wishes.

 

sorry rab, what i meant was, do we have a say in any tv deal or is our money for next season being taken from us as well?

[RANGERRAB 3,299]

sorry rab, what i meant was, do we have a say in any tv deal or is our money for next season being taken from us as well?

 

Not sure m8

[GovanAllan 0]

Ought to protect clubs from the situation we find ourselves in, and was clearly intended to do so, but I can see a few technicalities in how it's phrased that could be used to circumvent it.

 

Thought that as well, until somebody showed me rule 19, which states although an associate member doesn't get a say or vote they still come under all the rules of a full member club.