New strip/sponsor

[boabie 230]

2 hours ago, Walterbear said:

Another thing - if the BBC refuse to cover our games properly we should look at options of striking a deal with other broadcasters even if it is local radio and just return our share of the BBC contribution. I don’t see how we can be tied into deals made by SPFL or SFA that do not give us equality with other clubs. There is something not quite right about the BBC doing commentaries on a Sky broadcast when we are being marginalised in terms of coverage.  There must be some angle here. 

The BBC have a deal with the SPFL for a certain amount of cash. The cash gets shared out between the clubs depending on where they finish up in the league table . The amount of matches covered doesn't come into it.

Also, we have a contract with the SPFL so would not be allowed to make our own deals.

[MacK1950 2,430]

What about the "sporting integrity" always being spouted by SPFL/SFA?????

[DevilBlue WeeThe 44]

7 minutes ago, MacK1950 said:

What about the "sporting integrity" always being spouted by SPFL/SFA?????

That was just a stick to beat us with of course.

 

On rule for..............

[Walterbear 557]

1 hour ago, boabie said:

The BBC have a deal with the SPFL for a certain amount of cash. The cash gets shared out between the clubs depending on where they finish up in the league table . The amount of matches covered doesn't come into it.

Also, we have a contract with the SPFL so would not be allowed to make our own deals.

I understand that Boabie but the SPFL can’t be doing deals with broadcasters who dont cover the interests of their collective members. They (SPFL) represent Rangers on these deals. The SPFL represent us and have a duty to ensure it’s members are treated fairly and equally. That’s what collective deals are about.   We have a dispute with the biased contribution of one person from the broadcaster and the SPFL should be standing up for us and we should be demanding that. The broadcaster is claiming journalistic integrity is threatened unless they can have a press pass for their biased reporter.  If the SPFL cannot fulfil the function of ensuring a fair deal is available fir everyone then we should tell them we have no alternative other than go elsewhere if we want our fans to access commentary of our games properly. Then see what they do. If we believe we are right on this then why not? Are the SPFL going to kick us out? The worst they will do is fine us and withhold the BBC sums due to us. The reason nothing happens is because no one is doing anything. 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Walterbear

[Bluedell 5,829]

The SPFL own the rights to all SPFL games, not us, so we can't sell something that doesn't belong to us.

 

Would we be happy if we had to accept less money from a TV deal because, say Hearts, had a dispute with the broadcaster? 

[boabie 230]

1 hour ago, Walterbear said:

I understand that Boabie but the SPFL can’t be doing deals with broadcasters who dont cover the interests of their collective members. They (SPFL) represent Rangers on these deals. The SPFL represent us and have a duty to ensure it’s members are treated fairly and equally. That’s what collective deals are about.   We have a dispute with the biased contribution of one person from the broadcaster and the SPFL should be standing up for us and we should be demanding that. The broadcaster is claiming journalistic integrity is threatened unless they can have a press pass for their biased reporter.  If the SPFL cannot fulfil the function of ensuring a fair deal is available fir everyone then we should tell them we have no alternative other than go elsewhere if we want our fans to access commentary of our games properly. Then see what they do. If we believe we are right on this then why not? Are the SPFL going to kick us out? The worst they will do is fine us and withhold the BBC sums due to us. The reason nothing happens is because no one is doing anything. 

The problem though is mate - we don't have a "dispute" with the BBC. We have one with one of their employees.

Our contract is with the SPFL and not with the BBC.

However, despite us all knowing the BBC are at fault here - is anybody seriously expecting the SPFL to back us up in a disagreement with anybody whatsoever, never mind the BBC ?

The SPFL have a duty of care to all the other clubs here too.

If the Rangers fans are so upset then the answer is clear ------ stop attending away matches. Let's hurt the other clubs to force them into perhaps thinking about backing us against the BBC.

Edited April 2, 2018 by boabie

[Walterbear 557]

The dispute is with the BBC Boabie. It’s about the behaviour of one of their employees but it is the BBC hierarchy who have backed their man or rather what they see as principles of journalistic integrity. The correct course of action for the club to take in this dispute is to take it up with the SPFL. 

 

The SPFL may not back us up but they would need a very good reason to refuse to assist. That gets noted and put in the leger and/or it provides an excuse to break the mould. 

 

There are some legitimate doubts expressed elsewhere about whether or not Rangers should be building bridges with other clubs. This situation is a good example of why we should. 

[Walterbear 557]

3 hours ago, Bluedell said:

The SPFL own the rights to all SPFL games, not us, so we can't sell something that doesn't belong to us.

 

Would we be happy if we had to accept less money from a TV deal because, say Hearts, had a dispute with the broadcaster? 

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. 

[Gonzo79 15,299]

We can't withdraw from an agreement that we weren't party to.  It's between the SPFL and the BBC.  

 

Not ideal but that's that.

[pete 2,499]

28 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. 

the SPFL would pull in our licence.