PDA

View Full Version : Allocation of SPL Commercial Revenue - The Facts



Hibbyradge
11-10-2009, 11:09 AM
I read a lot of posts which suggest that TV money etc is unfairly weighted in favour of the Old Firm.

A year ago, I wrote to the SPL to ask for clarification and received a detailed reply from David Ogilvie, the SPL Operations Administrator. (I can email it to anyone who is interested.)

The SPL rules dictate that all commercial revenues are pooled and split 48% equally and 52% by league position.

In total, the winners receive 17%, the runners up get 15% and the third placed team gets 9.5%.

4th 8.5%
5th 8.0%
6th 7.5%

and so on until 12th place which is allocated 4.5%.

When the Yams were second, they recived 15% of all SPL commercial revenue. Rangers received 9.5%.

Woody1985
11-10-2009, 11:41 AM
I read a lot of posts which suggest that TV money etc is unfairly weighted in favour of the Old Firm.

A year ago, I wrote to the SPL to ask for clarification and received a detailed reply from David Ogilvie, the SPL Operations Administrator. (I can email it to anyone who is interested.)

The SPL rules dictate that all commercial revenues are pooled and split 48% equally and 52% by league position.

In total, the winners receive 17%, the runners up get 15% and the third placed team gets 9.5%.

4th 8.5%
5th 8.0%
6th 7.5%

and so on until 12th place which is allocated 4.5%.

When the Yams were second, they recived 15% of all SPL commercial revenue. Rangers received 9.5%.

Good info.

I recall you posting this a couple of times.

The jump between 2nd and 3rd is ridiculous IMO. Does anyone know the comparative split in the EPL, say from 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th?

Hibbyradge
11-10-2009, 12:02 PM
Good info.

I recall you posting this a couple of times.

The jump between 2nd and 3rd is ridiculous IMO. Does anyone know the comparative split in the EPL, say from 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th?

I looked into it before.

I don't have the actual figures to hand, but the sliding scale in the EPL is not so severe.

MyJo
11-10-2009, 12:13 PM
The jump between 2nd and 3rd is ridiculous IMO.

And the powers that be didn't make that decision based on the fact that rangers and celtic are expected to finish first and second every year now did they :dunno:

Green Mikey
11-10-2009, 12:16 PM
Good info.

I recall you posting this a couple of times.

The jump between 2nd and 3rd is ridiculous IMO. Does anyone know the comparative split in the EPL, say from 2nd to 3rd and 4th to 5th?

The bias towards the Old Firm is clearly evident in the money allocated to 1st and 2nd.

Everyone knows the OF will finish at the top of the league and the revenue is unfairly split in favour of this.

Woody1985
11-10-2009, 12:26 PM
I looked into it before.

I don't have the actual figures to hand, but the sliding scale in the EPL is not so severe.

:shocked:


And the powers that be didn't make that decision based on the fact that rangers and celtic are expected to finish first and second every year now did they :dunno:

I'm sure they wouldn't do that, would they? :LOL:


The bias towards the Old Firm is clearly evident in the money allocated to 1st and 2nd.

Everyone knows the OF will finish at the top of the league and the revenue is unfairly split in favour of this.

Exactly. The could argue that they bring in the most revenue and sponsorship but that should be irrelevant. Man U probably don't influence the amounts so much based on what HR has said and they are one of the biggest draws in the world for fans.

Luna_Asylum
11-10-2009, 12:51 PM
I looked into it before.

I don't have the actual figures to hand, but the sliding scale in the EPL is not so severe.

The EPL calculated it last season like this

Prize money (max £15.2m, min £761,000); TV cash (£13.9m per club plus £480,000 per televised match – minimum payment 10 matches); overseas TV, sponsorship and licensing money (£12m per club).

Man Utd were top with £52.3m and Liverpool second with £51.1m

Lowest were Boro & West Brom with £31.4m and £31.6m

So in England the bottom club got over 60% of what the top one got but in Scotland just 26%

Hibbyradge
11-10-2009, 12:56 PM
The could argue that they bring in the most revenue and sponsorship but that should be irrelevant.

Of course, if Rantic did leave, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts would be the biggest attractions for Sponsors. Milne, Petrie and Vlad wouldn't argue that their teams should have the lion's share of whatever sponsorship is received, now would they?

And of course, no-one on here would think it slightly unfair when Ross County, who average 2000 at home, and bring 2 car loads of fans to away games, get an equal share of commercial revenues, now would they?

Woody1985
11-10-2009, 01:10 PM
Of course, if Rantic did leave, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts would be the biggest attractions for Sponsors. Milne, Petrie and Vlad wouldn't argue that their teams should have the lion's share of whatever sponsorship is received, now would they?

And of course, no-one on here would think it slightly unfair when Ross County, who average 2000 at home, and bring 2 car loads of fans to away games, get an equal share of commercial revenues, now would they?

Of course they would. But I'm sure we wouldn't bleat how the lack of competition is stifling us and how we need to leave to grow our clubs to challenge in Europe.

They want to have everything their way and that is the problem. If the money was spread around more evenly they'd have more competition, more competition means a bigger risk to their dominance. They're a bunch of fannies.

The gate receipts thing doesn't bother me. Bigger teams have bigger fan bases, that is only natural. I wouldn't be too impressed with half of the derby cash going to Hearts (although I appreciate it will even itself out over a season (unless we end up with the two home games :wink:).

Luna_Asylum
11-10-2009, 01:12 PM
Of course, if Rantic did leave, Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts would be the biggest attractions for Sponsors. Milne, Petrie and Vlad wouldn't argue that their teams should have the lion's share of whatever sponsorship is received, now would they?

And of course, no-one on here would think it slightly unfair when Ross County, who average 2000 at home, and bring 2 car loads of fans to away games, get an equal share of commercial revenues, now would they?

It should not be based on what Petrie or Vlad (surely some mistake) argues or what Ross County's home or away support is.

Like England the TV money and sponsorship should be mostly equal with small adjustment for number of games shown and the prize money based on league position.

No-one should get more than double anybody else.

hibsdaft
11-10-2009, 01:34 PM
if there was a significant jump from 2nd to 1st it wouldn't be so bad but the fact the gap between 2nd and 3rd is nearly three times the size of it is a joke. they're not even trying to hide it.

Hibbyradge
11-10-2009, 02:22 PM
if there was a significant jump from 2nd to 1st it wouldn't be so bad but the fact the gap between 2nd and 3rd is nearly three times the size of it is a joke. they're not even trying to hide it.

They, being the chairmen of all the SPL clubs, including Hibs.

IIRC, Celtic and Rangers voted against the current arrangements. They wanted a lot more but were out-voted.

And they wanted it guaranteed, not based on league placings.