SPFL move to cut Rangers out of vote on SKY TV deal

[BEARGER 1,829]

League bosses moved to cut Rangers out of the vote on a new £30million a year TV deal - after the Ibrox club demanded cash and an apology before giving it their approval.

The proposal to extend a contract with broadcast giants Sky until 2029 was effectively torpedoed on Sunday night when Rangers refused to give it their backing. And Record Sport understands the Rangers hierarchy are refusing to support the revamped agreement until the SPFL say sorry for a previous bitter dispute over league sponsors Cinch AND agree to pick up the legal tabs on behalf of both the club and chairman Douglas Park.

League chief executive Neil Doncaster needed all 12 top flight clubs to sign a waiver agreeing to let Sky’s cameras into their home grounds for one extra game a season. But while the other 11 signed up for a slice of the extra cash ahead of Sunday’s deadline, Rangers stood their ground and left the deal hanging in the balance.

Yesterday, Doncaster attempted to circumnavigate that blockage by sending out a new ‘commercial resolution’ to clubs which requires the support of only 11 top flight clubs for it to be pushed through. It must also receive the blessing of at least six clubs from the Championship and a combined total of 32 clubs from across all four divisions.

The clubs have until next Tuesday to register their votes but the league are confident the resolution will carry the support of the vast majority.

Sky want to beef up their coverage of the Scottish top flight by increasing their live match package from 48 games to 60 games from season 2024/25 - and are willing to increase their annual payments from £24m to £30m by season 2028/29. And one source close to the stand off told Record Sport last night Rangers have said they would be happy for that deal to be signed off.

The source said: “They have actually said that they will vote for the Sky extension but only after they have received an apology from the SPFL and get their legal fees paid along with those of Douglas Park.

“That’s what’s caused this problem and why there was no alternative for the league other than to issue a new resolution which can be carried by an 11-1 majority.”

A second resolution was also put forward yesterday which, if pushed through, would enable all clubs to sell an additional five pay-per-view matches per season from their home grounds.

Record Sport contacted Rangers for comment.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

A fairly reasonable request. 

[rbr 1,247]

I thought when they lost the case they were to pay our costs or was I imagining this .

[Uilleam 5,409]

19 minutes ago, rbr said:

I thought when they lost the case they were to pay our costs or was I imagining this .

That's what I thought.

 

I think that the Club must stick to its guns, here.

 

[Bill 13,717]

We'll end up in legal action to recover costs from the SPFL

[Scott7 5,150]

2 hours ago, rbr said:

I thought when they lost the case they were to pay our costs or was I imagining this .

I might not remember the facts correctly but it was Parks, not the Club, who raised the court action. Parks were successful but only on an interim basis although getting a final order with an award of expenses, I suppose, would be a formality. 
 

**The Club will have incurred the expense of legal advice but not being involved in the Court case won’t have an immediate right to recover that outlay.

 

The Club was involved as a party in the SFA arbitration process. What happened to that?

Parks are not a members of the SPFL so Park himself as Club Chairman can’t use the Club to blackmail the League (Unfortunately) Rangers may well have a right to recover their legal expenses but absent a formal award, won’t be able to make much use of that as a threat.

 

If Rangers are subsequently found to have withheld consent to the TV deal unreasonably might that make them liable to the other clubs for their loss of a share of the extra money?

 

I think this is the wrong battle to fight.

** On checking back, the action was Parks against the SFA with Rangers in the proceedings as interested parties. If there was an award of expenses, use it. If not get the award pronto.

Edited September 6, 2022 by Scott7
Memory fault (Again)

[the gunslinger 3,366]

49 minutes ago, Bill said:

We'll end up in legal action to recover costs from the SPFL

Not sure FIFA allow legal action against the SPFL. They certainly don't v the SFA. 

[RANGERRAB 3,255]

£30m is still a derisory deal but the SPFL is mostly just clubs with little or no ambition except us & them

[der Berliner 3,240]

The source said: “They have actually said that they will vote for the Sky extension but only after they have received an apology from the SPFL and get their legal fees paid along with those of Douglas Park.

Record Sport contacted Rangers for comment.

 

Maybe we wait for a few days and see what others and our club has to say about this?

[Sutton_blows_goats 4,177]

15 hours ago, BEARGER said:

And Record Sport understands

I smell Lawwell