ian1964 10,761 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 LINDSAY HERRON REMEMBER the old days when football was played at three o’clock every Saturday? Peter Lawwell would dearly love a return but not out of any misty-eyed romanticism – it would make Celtic more money. Indeed, having crunched the numbers the Celtic chief executive would happily scrap the paltry SPFL television contract and revert to the traditional kick-off time. Lawwell believes that Celtic could make more from ticket sales and other match-day revenues than the £2 million his club receives from the TV companies. It further highlights the disparity between the English Premier League and the SPFL and how Celtic are financially hamstrung despite their commercial worth and widespread appeal, illustrated by last week’s new kit deal with New Balance. Lawwell knows his hope is a pipedream as the other Scottish clubs rely on the television money – even if it is small change in comparison to the millions lavished upon English clubs. He said: “For me, we would like to play every Saturday at 3pm and forget the telly but we can’t because the other clubs are so dependent on it. “I think we would have more people coming to games if they were three o’clock every Saturday and that would far outweigh the money we get for TV. But it is more vital for other clubs. “The SPFL get a lot of stick on something that is a wee bit unfair because you can only get what people will pay for it. There was no other competition so that’s why Sky, ESPN and BT picked it up. “The English Premier League is a different ball game because it has gone beyond the valuation of football rights. “It’s two global communication giants with strategic objectives, vying for market share and they are paying way above what it is worth for their own purposes. But we are not part of that. The irony is that 10 per cent of people who help fund that are Scottish subscribers. This is nothing to do with football rights, it’s Sky and BT defending their customer base. Burnley could outbid us for a player now. They’ll get £100m if they’re relegated this season. Burnley now financially dwarf Celtic. It’s ludicrous but it’s a sign of the times.” The return of Hearts and Rangers to the Premiership would probably lead to a small rise in TV revenues, but simply having Rangers back will benefit Celtic to the tune of £10m. Lawwell said: “There might be more money available going forward and that could depend on Hearts and Rangers coming up. It would certainly help. It’s about quality of product and competition. Hopefully there can be a new beginning here. “Do I hope Rangers come up? The positives you miss the negatives you don’t. They have to sort themselves out. It costs us £10m a year without Rangers – if they came back up we’d progressively get that back. “It depends on their ownership. Everyone would agree the ownership there has been questionable in the last three years.” http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/peter-lawwell-ditch-the-spfl-tv-deal-1-3712459 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,811 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 On a sidenote, comparing the English Leagues with the Scottish does not hold up either. If anything, he may look at Sweden, Norway or Denmark to find leagues with similar competitive leagues and a similar TV setup. He and his destroyed the only draw the Scottish game has had in living memory. The only draw Sky would utilize. Another season of rebuilding in the Championship will be hard to take football wise, but for all they did to us, "robbing" them and any other ex-SPL cowards another few million would ease that pain. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whosthedado 1,703 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 but simply having Rangers back will benefit Celtic to the tune of £10m. but they don't miss us or need us 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,744 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 but they don't miss us or need us When Liewell says it costs them £10m you can be sure it's more than that...... Don't believe a word the man says 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,744 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) I suspect Liewell is now worried. Worried about another season without Rangers. I suspect without the CL money Celt@c aren't viable. Don't forget they've still got a wage bill of somewhere between £25 to £30million which simply isn't sustainable in the SPFL top division without Rangers.And don't forget too that two of their loans signings from Man City last summer, Denayer & Spaghetti, have more or less told them they won't be back next season.And Van DIjk will be off too but certainly not to the likes of Arsenal. Ah but they've got 40k plus ST holders I hear you say. Well do you believe that? Where do they go at every home game then Peter? Do they all hide under the green seats? And why does Liewell want to ditch the TV deal he and his buddy Dumbcaster signed in the summer of 2012 as he tried to show everyone Scottish football didn't need Rangers? Not working out too well is it Peter? I'm still laughing at having to PAY broadcasters to show our games. LOL. You & Dumbcaster didn't us that bit about the deal you signed did you? Seriously though I fully realise KIng,Murray & GIlligan have a lot on their plate at the moment but they really must prioritise sorting out the clowns who run the game in this country Edited March 8, 2015 by RANGERRAB 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Good luck getting sponsorship if your not on tv. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,761 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 What chance of league re-construction to get Rangers back in to the top flight?,Lieswell has the power and if it's costing his scummy club £10m a year can anyone really afford another season without the blue pound? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,761 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 Celtic don't need Rangers, says Peter Lawwell By Chris McLaughlin Senior Football Reporter, BBC Scotland 13 February 2012 Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell insists his club "don't need Rangers" to flourish financially. Rangers are awaiting the verdict of a long-running tax case that could place the future of the Ibrox club in doubt. But Lawwell says the eventuality of their Old Firm rivals going bust "would have no material effect on Celtic". "We look after ourselves," Lawwell told BBC Scotland. "We don't rely on any other club. We are in a decent position, we're very strong." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17013512 Make your mind up Peter! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,811 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Maybe he envisages selling Gordon to Chelsea for 10m? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
compo 7,218 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I to would love to see football played at three on a Saturday 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.