ian1964 10,761 Posted July 21, 2015 Author Share Posted July 21, 2015 Snatched from FB ... Is this for real?,can anyone explain it please? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,802 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Is this for real?,can anyone explain it please? I don't know if it's real but I can explain it. The 'Total' column under TV Audience is the total number of viewers who took in a match featuring Rangers on TV last season. The Average column I assume is the average each match attracted assuming Rangers featured 21 times. The 'Share' column is baffling me to be honest but I think it means we appeared in 43% of all televised matches, but I could be wrong. The Prize Pot has two columns, this is allocated on the basis of where a side finished in the league with top of the SPL getting the most and then a sliding scale all the way down to Montrose at the bottom of whatever the bottom division is called this season. So because we finished third in our league we get 1.6% of the prize pot that's £288,000. I imagine the graph is attempting to show the discrepancy between audience and income, although I disagree those two figures should equate. We are where we are and so the prizemoney we get should be less than clubs finishing higher than us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rousseau 10,823 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Snatched from FB ... The prize money is piss poor, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it: it's simply reflective of our final league position. The TV audience is quite interesting, showing our power in that regard. Surely we should get a bigger share of the money if we're on TV more? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,802 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 The prize money is piss poor, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it: it's simply reflective of our final league position. The TV audience is quite interesting, showing our power in that regard. Surely we should get a bigger share of the money if we're on TV more? I don't think so, if we go down that road then the clubs with the biggest support will always receive the most money rather than the clubs with the best football teams. Clubs with a bigger support already have a built in advantage as they'll get higher gate receipts, sponsorship, shirt sales etc but prize money should always be dependent on league position. It's frustrating for our support when our matches are moved to accommodate TV, however that's how the league works and what was signed up too. If we don't like it we should lobby our club and the SPFL to change it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman 9 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 It's just as well Scottish football's TV deal is crap, if it had been double what it is now our 1.60% share would have given us just over half a million with C*ltics 13.40% share earning almost £5M! 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 I don't know if it's real but I can explain it. The 'Share' column is baffling me to be honest but I think it means we appeared in 43% of all televised matches, but I could be wrong. This the % share of the total audience. It adds up to 200% as there are two teams in every game - while we were involved in 43% of the total audience, so were the teams we were playing. I imagine the graph is attempting to show the discrepancy between audience and income, although I disagree those two figures should equate. We are where we are and so the prizemoney we get should be less than clubs finishing higher than us. While some of the money should be based on league position, it makes sense that there should be an allocation for the number of games you play in - like in the EPL. This is especially true when the 15th team for prize-money is featured in the most games - and also has to take a hit due to moving of those games to a less desirable day and time, which can affect income. It's not only affecting us, it affected Hibs, Hearts and most of the Championship teams. It seems like all the SPL teams do is scam our fans out of their money and then treat them and our club like shit. I really hope we boycott their grounds when we get back as otherwise, we'll have taken an undeserved thrashing and then said, "Thank you sir, may I have another." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnMc 2,802 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 This the % share of the total audience. It adds up to 200% as there are two teams in every game - while we were involved in 43% of the total audience, so were the teams we were playing. While some of the money should be based on league position, it makes sense that there should be an allocation for the number of games you play in - like in the EPL. This is especially true when the 15th team for prize-money is featured in the most games - and also has to take a hit due to moving of those games to a less desirable day and time, which can affect income. It's not only affecting us, it affected Hibs, Hearts and most of the Championship teams. It seems like all the SPL teams do is scam our fans out of their money and then treat them and our club like shit. I really hope we boycott their grounds when we get back as otherwise, we'll have taken an undeserved thrashing and then said, "Thank you sir, may I have another." I'm not sure I agree with you on money being allocated on the number of times a side features. Us coming 15th is our fault and that we'll be earning less again this season is again our fault. That ross County or Thistle earn more is correct, they play at a higher level. If we skew it so the number of times you appear in TV affects the payment then we're in reality building in a Rangers and Celtic bias to the prize money from day one. No matter how we perform we're going to be in demand from TV so we'll earn more. I don't think the English system has been good for football down there. There was a time when almost any side could realistically hope to win the top flight in England, the changes now mean in reality perhaps five sides can. That's not good for the game. The game in Scotland is skewed enough without us adding to it. A proper challenge from a side other than Celtic is what the game here needs, the stronger the league we're in the better we need to be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trublusince1982 243 Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Since a club can be adversely effected with reduced ticket sales etc they should get more money. 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.