Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 36 minutes ago, Walterbear said: Well tell the SPFL they can keep our share of the BBC money and we state we will withdraw from that agreement (the other 11 would get more money) And we set our own up. The BBC offer the same financial pittance they currently do to the SPFL , they offer the same shiite broadcasting service, we do a deal with whoever and take a share of advertising or whatever. The current setup where we are abused and ridiculed by the BBC, we don’t get a service, we get a pittance in renumeratuon and the SPFL fail to represent us not workable and not acceptable. If the other clubs want to wirk with us then then let’s build bridges. If they don’t then let’s challenge the while set up. The one thing we can be sure of is the other 11 will look at the effect on their pockets first and foremost andbif there is a financial advantage they will recognise that. The football product is being sold cheap. There is more money out there but the SPFL and SFA are amateurs. Re-read my first sentence. We can withdraw from the BBC agreement but we still can't sell the games. They aren't ours to sell. We just have less money. The SPFL rules are clear (I4-I22). We break the rules and they chuck us out again, or they take legal action against us...and we'd lose. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 2 minutes ago, pete said: the SPFL would pull in our licence. 2 minutes ago, pete said: the SPFL would pull in our licence. Pete, the last few years have proven that Rangers are box office.We are the biggest show in town and without the OF games on top of that Scottish football is worth nothing. The SPFL (the clubs) need Rangers. They are not a mythical unconquerable beast. They either represent us fairly or we negotiate a different relationship. Why would they turn down our share of the BBC money? My whole argument is based on the unreasonable behaviour of the BBC. I’m not offering belligerence for the sake of it. At the moment the other clubs ie the SPFL are all happy it is an issue between us and the BBC when I’m fact it should be an issue which the SPFL supports us on. We are creating money for the other clubs right now. Of course the club and fans may be happy with the status quo and I may be in a minority of one but I think our marginalisation by the BBC is not only vindictive but it is intentionally damaging our brand and therefore our growth. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walterbear 557 Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Bluedell said: Re-read my first sentence. We can withdraw from the BBC agreement but we still can't sell the games. They aren't ours to sell. We just have less money. The SPFL rules are clear (I4-I22). We break the rules and they chuck us out again, or they take legal action against us...and we'd lose. That’s what negotiation is about bluebell. The key is to create a win win. Nothing cannot be changed. How do you know they would kick us out instead of taking a bigger share of the pot? You don’t because we haven’t discussed it with them. Sorry but I don’t buy that there are no alternatives. The assumption I am making is that there is more money out there. The only thing which brings my argument down is if there is not. If the numbers add up (and I do t know if they do) then people will change. Edited April 2, 2018 by Walterbear 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volbeater 17 Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 Where would Scottish football be without Rangers? Where would the media be without us? I can just see Partick as the other side of the old firm. (Not). 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooponthewing 1,139 Posted April 2, 2018 Share Posted April 2, 2018 In five years this wont matter. Everything will change 2021/22 when I’m 90% certain the big clubs form their super league. A year later we would be playing North Atlantic League either midweek or full time. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,329 Posted April 3, 2018 Share Posted April 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Walterbear said: That’s what negotiation is about bluebell. The key is to create a win win. Nothing cannot be changed. How do you know they would kick us out instead of taking a bigger share of the pot? You don’t because we haven’t discussed it with them. Sorry but I don’t buy that there are no alternatives. The assumption I am making is that there is more money out there. The only thing which brings my argument down is if there is not. If the numbers add up (and I do t know if they do) then people will change. We can propose a rule change, if that's what you're suggesting, but it's unlikely to get passed as the other clubs aren't going to agree to anything that gives themselves less cash. The alternative of separate deals HAS been discussed before but it got nowhere then and it would get nowhere now. More money? Scottish football is going backwards and is a one horse race to anyone outside of Scotland and that one horse is a team that is generally disliked by anyone that doesn't have an Irish heritage. The appeal is 4 games a season...and when these are largely predictable then it becomes even less so. There may be the odd £0.5m-£1m additional out there but split 12 ways it's nothing to get excited about. 0 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.