TV chiefs in bid for cheaper SPL deal

[CumbernauldGers 0]

Bye bye SPL.

[alexscottislegend 2,614]

I really fail to understand the glee with which some of our fans are greeting this. When we get back to the top division we will need some one to play, no? Or do you think that the English Leagues will be dying to invite us to join, because I don't, not with the new foreign owners of Cardiif and Notts Forest for example all with their eyes on the EPL.

 

Yes, I know that some clubs behaved hypocritically, not to mention their fans, but I for one do not want Scottish football to die.

[andy steel 0]

It's not going to die.

 

Sky, even on a reduced contract, need a product to cover. It follows, then, that they are not going to let the league collapse, and so the talk about 16m disappearing overnight is hot air. If it is to go, it will be staggered so as to allow clubs a chance to cope.

 

Of course, I could be totally wrong.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

sky will still want to cover rangers and celtc away games.

 

games between two spl clubs pull in pathetic viewing figures.

[alexscottislegend 2,614]

It's not going to die.

 

Sky, even on a reduced contract, need a product to cover. It follows, then, that they are not going to let the league collapse, and so the talk about 16m disappearing overnight is hot air. If it is to go, it will be staggered so as to allow clubs a chance to cope.

 

Of course, I could be totally wrong.

 

Hope you're right Andy. What might happen is that the SFL by default becomes the richer body. Which would suit us, in the short term at least.

[kuznetsov 0]

How many 25.000+ players do Celtic have to pay. First round CL knock-out is a disaster for them.

 

quite a few and also several around the 15 - 20 mark. there wage bill looks unmanageable but they pull it off and their debt is rising with every non participation in the Champions League. they will qualify this year though

[Guest Dutchy]

Only a proportion of the £2.7M that Celtic got for winning the SPL last season relates to the TV money and that £2.7M is only say 10% of their playing budget and possibly 5% of their overall budget (sorry don't have exact figures but it will be that kind of proportion) so it is not that simple.

 

It WILL have an impact on them but not nearly as much as it has on other clubs.

 

I agree they'll not suffer as much as the others, but I'm confused as to how the payments work out?

 

I thought the money for winning the title would have come mainly from the Clydesdale bank as they're the sponsors, and in their last year. We can wait to see what sponsor comes along with no Rangers in there.

 

I thought the TV money was split up between the teams as the game is played. All the game adding up to the £10-12 million for a season. Evidence the hue and cry when refs called off games that were to be TVised and the loss to the particular club.

 

Whatever way it works, there'll certainly be some hard pressed teams in the year to come, with septic suffering as well, to some extent.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I agree they'll not suffer as much as the others, but I'm confused as to how the payments work out?

 

I thought the money for winning the title would have come mainly from the Clydesdale bank as they're the sponsors, and in their last year. We can wait to see what sponsor comes along with no Rangers in there.

 

I thought the TV money was split up between the teams as the game is played. All the game adding up to the £10-12 million for a season. Evidence the hue and cry when refs called off games that were to be TVised and the loss to the particular club.

 

Whatever way it works, there'll certainly be some hard pressed teams in the year to come, with septic suffering as well, to some extent.

 

No, it all goes into one pot. There may be deductions, if certain games are not played on the original dates that they were due to be televised but that won't affect the clubs concerned in that match.

[BrahimHemdani 1]

No, it all goes into one pot. There may be deductions, if certain games are not played on the original dates that they were due to be televised but that won't affect the clubs concerned in that match.

 

Unless you are referring to cup ties.

[Guest Dutchy]

No, it all goes into one pot. There may be deductions, if certain games are not played on the original dates that they were due to be televised but that won't affect the clubs concerned in that match.

 

No, not cup ties. I just got the impression from all the wailing when a match was postponed that the team would lose out on much needed cash injections, as well as a wee bit from a smaller crowd as the reply would most likely be a midweek game. I was sure the money was split something like 60/40% in favour of the home team, but that may have been some earlier deal, because I don't seriously know how it's done at the moment. Either way though, wheather it's at the end of the season, or not, surely the smaller teams arehappier to have both OF teams visiting, due to their high potential for TVised matches.

 

That route to riches has been slashed by more than 50% now, as we always had the bigger average away support than septic.