SkyTV Contract

[StewMartin]

It seems grossly unfair that Sky have a clause in the contract meaning it's null and void in the event one of the old firm is not in the league. This means that Rangers will almost certainly get re-admitted back into the SPL even if the go into liquidation an no longer exist in current form.

Even if they don't go bust you would expect the SFA would almost certainly punish them very severly than just the automatic 10 points for breaking the rules / cheating over many years, costing other clubs trophies, revenue, European places etc. Whilst Vlad is a twat, I am sure we would be raging if they were due us £800k (or 10% of our annul revenue) for one of the players they bought from us who they have played to get them into Champions League qualification position. Totally unacceptable.

So why don't we start a campaign to get supporters from all other clubs to cancel their Sky Sports contract unless they announce that the current deal will remain valid even if one of the Old Firm left the league. That way there would be no arm twising to get Chairman to agree on readmittance of Huns for fear of substantial revenue reduction due to reduced TV income.

By my calculation get 100k fans to cancel at £150 per year for Sky Sports would lose them £15m revenue, which is about what they are paying the SPL anyway, so it's a very powerful message to give them........

[Scouse Hibee]

No chance I'm cancelling my SKY because of Scottish Football.................FFS I very rarely watch the SPL games anyway!!!

[Irish_Steve]

I`d rtaher have no Rangers and no Sky contract - then games would be on a Sat at 3pm like they should be!

[StewMartin]

Good point. But the threat of losing millions of pounds for teams like Kilmarnock, Motherwell, St Johnstone would force them to allow the Huns back in despite years of cheating!

[lord bunberry]

I`d rtaher have no Rangers and no Sky contract - then games would be on a Sat at 3pm like they should be!

Totally agree surely it wouldn't take that many extra punters through the turnstyles to make up the shortfall we must be a couple of thousand down every time a game is televised

[Steven_Hibs]

I`d rtaher have no Rangers and no Sky contract - then games would be on a Sat at 3pm like they should be!

:top marks

Thing is though, people say attendances would increase if the league is more competitive! Does everyone agree with that? I dont

[Cropley10]

It seems grossly unfair that Sky have a clause in the contract meaning it's null and void in the event one of the old firm is not in the league. This means that Rangers will almost certainly get re-admitted back into the SPL even if the go into liquidation an no longer exist in current form.

Even if they don't go bust you would expect the SFA would almost certainly punish them very severly than just the automatic 10 points for breaking the rules / cheating over many years, costing other clubs trophies, revenue, European places etc. Whilst Vlad is a twat, I am sure we would be raging if they were due us £800k (or 10% of our annul revenue) for one of the players they bought from us who they have played to get them into Champions League qualification position. Totally unacceptable.

So why don't we start a campaign to get supporters from all other clubs to cancel their Sky Sports contract unless they announce that the current deal will remain valid even if one of the Old Firm left the league. That way there would be no arm twising to get Chairman to agree on readmittance of Huns for fear of substantial revenue reduction due to reduced TV income.

By my calculation get 100k fans to cancel at £150 per year for Sky Sports would lose them £15m revenue, which is about what they are paying the SPL anyway, so it's a very powerful message to give them........

There is no proof whatsoever that this Clause exists. How can a TV determine which teams are in a Competition exactly?

It's a myth peddled by people desperate to see Rangers survive unscathed.

[Hibby Hippy]

:top marks

Thing is though, people say attendances would increase if the league is more competitive! Does everyone agree with that? I dont

If it meant 3PM saturday kickoffs i think crowds would increase.

[greenlex]

There is no proof whatsoever that this Clause exists. How can a TV determine which teams are in a Competition exactly?

It's a myth peddled by people desperate to see Rangers survive unscathed.

The last SPL chairman Rodger Mitchell alluded to such a clause in a previous TV deal but don't remember which one Sky or Setanta.
I have no idea if the current one does though.

[ScottB]

I don't see why Sky wouldn't have inserted a clause that would allow them to renegotiate the deal if Rangers fell out of the league. They aren't stupid and would have foreseen this coming when the contracts were being worked out, and with the clubs having a choice of Sky or nought, they would have agreed.

I don't see this as unfair either, Sky is a business, take Rangers out the league, and a significant number of subscribers may well scrap their deals, so less money for Sky. The point is that Sky would have a clause that says the deal would be renegotiated in the event of Rangers dropping out the league, that doesn't mean they have to have Rangers in the SPL or that there'd be no deal, merely that they would wish to renegotiate a deal that would no longer be as commercially attractive to them. If the clause exists, at the least a majority of the clubs accepted it, so blame them. Sky is trying to get the best deal for itself and its shareholders, so to blame them is a bit pointless. If I worked on that deal for Sky, I'd have wanted that clause in there!

As for getting folk to cancel their Sky deals, well, Sky would likely stop bothering with the SPL altogether if we become a nuisance. I doubt it'd be any skin off their nose, in any case the number of people getting Sky just for SPL games is probably on the small side!

[Mikeystewart]

Surely the clause is only valid for Rangers 1873-2012 not Phoenix Rangers 2012- so surely there re-admission based on this clause is meaningless?

[Bishop Hibee]

I'd rather watch a lower quality but more competitive league without the OF, Sky deals etc. What's the point of competition if one of the OF messes up financially and is automatically allowed to continue? If Rantic finished in the bottom 6 would they simply be allowed to bump the team in 6th place to ensure the 4th OF game of the season?

Some Hibs fans need to stop doffing the cap to the OF and understand there would be a vibrant SPL without them. Hopefully we will be without Rangers if they get liquidated and start in Div 3, if the SFL accept them, for a wee trial run :lolrangers:

[Cropley10]

I don't see why Sky wouldn't have inserted a clause that would allow them to renegotiate the deal if Rangers fell out of the league. They aren't stupid and would have foreseen this coming when the contracts were being worked out, and with the clubs having a choice of Sky or nought, they would have agreed.

I don't see this as unfair either, Sky is a business, take Rangers out the league, and a significant number of subscribers may well scrap their deals, so less money for Sky. The point is that Sky would have a clause that says the deal would be renegotiated in the event of Rangers dropping out the league, that doesn't mean they have to have Rangers in the SPL or that there'd be no deal, merely that they would wish to renegotiate a deal that would no longer be as commercially attractive to them. If the clause exists, at the least a majority of the clubs accepted it, so blame them. Sky is trying to get the best deal for itself and its shareholders, so to blame them is a bit pointless. If I worked on that deal for Sky, I'd have wanted that clause in there!

As for getting folk to cancel their Sky deals, well, Sky would likely stop bothering with the SPL altogether if we become a nuisance. I doubt it'd be any skin off their nose, in any case the number of people getting Sky just for SPL games is probably on the small side!

Sky are a business. Businesses take risks. One risk would be one of the OF finishing 7th or worse.

Sky cannot determine that a certain 'Club', reborn or otherwise, MUST be in that League.

[SMAXXA]

:top marks

Thing is though, people say attendances would increase if the league is more competitive! Does everyone agree with that? I dont

Yes I agree totally.

[Irish_Steve]

:top marks

Thing is though, people say attendances would increase if the league is more competitive! Does everyone agree with that? I dont


Slightly difeerent scenario but when we were winning all the time in the First Division, our attendances went up - same thing would happened if we were actively challenging for the SPL title - it also means if say Aberdeen/Dundee UTD were in running for the title, that they would bring a massive support to ER

[Cropley10]

:top marks

Thing is though, people say attendances would increase if the league is more competitive! Does everyone agree with that? I dont

So by your definition, a less competitive league would see crowds go up. Suggest you think again :greengrin:

[greenginger]

Surely the clause is only valid for Rangers 1873-2012 not Phoenix Rangers 2012- so surely there re-admission based on this clause is meaningless?


Could we not just promote Berwick Rangers and satisfy the terms of the Contract to have Rangers in the League ? :greengrin

[son of haggart]

Slightly difeerent scenario but when we were winning all the time in the First Division, our attendances went up - same thing would happened if we were actively challenging for the SPL title - it also means if say Aberdeen/Dundee UTD were in running for the title, that they would bring a massive support to ER

I think that is definitely the case - having lived in aberdeen when they won the league and dundee when united won it both sides took much larger than average supports to away games in that period.

[Eyrie]

So by your definition, a less competitive league would see crowds go up. Suggest you think again :greengrin:
It does, for the teams that are winning all the time. So in the SPL that means the Ugly Sisters get the full stadia and the rest of us have empty seats.

[Captain Trips]

How long is contract/how long has it left?. I bet when it is up for renewal the terms will be a lot less due to all this. Now is the time to take the risk and resist Rangers dropping right back in.

[jgl07]

Slightly difeerent scenario but when we were winning all the time in the First Division, our attendances went up - same thing would happened if we were actively challenging for the SPL title - it also means if say Aberdeen/Dundee UTD were in running for the title, that they would bring a massive support to ER

It's a myth that attendances at Easter Road went up when in Division One. They held up quite well, at least in the home section, but the lower number of visiting supporters dargged the gates down somewhat.

[DH1875]

Here's what I don't get. What if they don't go into liquidation and stay in administration and then have to sell all their players and have to play kids and the dross they can't get rid off. Who's to say they'd finish top 6 next year and what if, even better, they ended up in a relegation battle and ended up going down. What happens to the TV deal then? Will we just cancel relegation that year?

[Sir David Gray]

Slightly difeerent scenario but when we were winning all the time in the First Division, our attendances went up - same thing would happened if we were actively challenging for the SPL title - it also means if say Aberdeen/Dundee UTD were in running for the title, that they would bring a massive support to ER

No, they didn't.

It's a myth that's often trotted out on here and elsewhere but a myth nonetheless.

Our average attendance in season 1997/98 when we were relegated was 12,025 and in 1998/99, when we were in the first division, was 10,433.

[DH1875]

It's a myth that attendances at Easter Road went up when in Division One. They held up quite well, at least in the home section, but the lower number of visiting supporters dargged the gates down somewhat.

Playing Stranraer will do that though. Can't tell me if we were playing Aberdeen, Utd or the Yams for a place in the Champions league ER wouldn't be close to a sell out. Watch and see what happens last couple of games at ER this season if were still in a relegation fight. Crowds will be well up our end.

[erin go bragh]

It's a myth that attendances at Easter Road went up when in Division One. They held up quite well, at least in the home section, but the lower number of visiting supporters dargged the gates down somewhat.
Pretty sure we had 14500 at er, against ayr utd,round about xmas time [5-1]
**** sky and the huns, and lets get back to saturday football at 3pm .
ggtth

[HibbiesandtheBaddies]

:top marks

Thing is though, people say attendances would increase if the league is more competitive! Does everyone agree with that? I dont


Eh?

[IWasThere2016]

No, they didn't.

It's a myth that's often trotted out on here and elsewhere but a myth nonetheless.

Our average attendance in season 1997/98 when we were relegated was 12,025 and in 1998/99, when we were in the first division, was 10,433.

More Hibs fans attended. It was the lack of derbies/OF/SPL fans that caused the average to drop. There's no myth :wink:

A competitive SPL will mean increased attendances .. The status quo of a two horse race is killing it. Change has to come.

[Sir David Gray]

Pretty sure we had 14500 at er, against ayr utd,round about xmas time [5-1]
**** sky and the huns, and lets get back to saturday football at 3pm .
ggtth

We had 14,106 for that match.

That doesn't mean that our average attendance for the season was higher than the season before it, though.

We quite often had attendances of around 8-9,000 when we were in the first division.

The idea that thousands of extra people were flocking to Easter Road that season because we were winning almost every week just isn't true.

[ScottB]

Sky are a business. Businesses take risks. One risk would be one of the OF finishing 7th or worse.

Sky cannot determine that a certain 'Club', reborn or otherwise, MUST be in that League.

Businesses take risks when needed. In the case of the SPL TV deal, Sky don't need to take risks, because at the end of the day, the clubs need them much, much more than Sky needs them.

With that in mind, Sky have the power to make pretty much whatever demands they like, and the clubs will agree, as they must have done to this clause, assuming it exists. But in any case, Sky aren't demanding that Rangers must be in the SPL, they are saying that if Rangers aren't going to be in the SPL the deal must be renegotiated to reflect the changed commercial realities of that scenario. That's their prerogative to suggest, and the clubs to agree or disagree, and it would appear that they agreed.


I don't really have much of a problem myself with them putting that in, from their point of view it makes perfect sense. If folk want to get angry about it, blame the clubs for being willing to bend over for the scraps Sky are willing to throw at them.

[EasterRoad4Ever]

The last SPL chairman Rodger Mitchell alluded to such a clause in a previous TV deal but don't remember which one Sky or Setanta.
I have no idea if the current one does though.

Would not surprise me at all if there was such a clause. If you are running Sky Sports and negotiating the deal, you'd definitely ask for that to be put in, knowing that without the OF the product is poor with few viewers. On the flip side, it costs the SPL NOTHING to agree to such a clause as no one would ever have expected the OF to get relegated or go bust.

The biggest risk to Sky would have been the OF moving South to the EPL - and they would have wanted that risk covered in the contract.

[smurf]

Slightly difeerent scenario but when we were winning all the time in the First Division, our attendances went up - same thing would happened if we were actively challenging for the SPL title - it also means if say Aberdeen/Dundee UTD were in running for the title, that they would bring a massive support to ER

How many times is this myth going to be repeated? Our crowds went DOWN in the First Division.

[smurf]

More Hibs fans attended. It was the lack of derbies/OF/SPL fans that caused the average to drop. There's no myth :wink:

A competitive SPL will mean increased attendances .. The status quo of a two horse race is killing it. Change has to come.

Not so sure that those figures indicate more Hibs fans attended?

[CabbageBoy]

We dont need Sky, or Rangers. In fact, the SPL needs one of the OF to be doing badly to thrive.

See http://wingsland.podgamer.com/​why-scotland-doesnt-need-ranger​s/ for some detailed financial analysis.

[Viva_Palmeiras]

Sky are a business. Businesses take risks. One risk would be one of the OF finishing 7th or worse.

Sky cannot determine that a certain 'Club', reborn or otherwise, MUST be in that League.

Sky through serisously outbidding rivals effectively lead clubs and leagues on a merry dance. It's like the pied pipe IMO

Don't tell me that any Atlantic league composition would not be influenced heavily by SKY.

They are systematically going through leagues and television coverage.

Their presence has unfortunately spread to Brasil. Some Classic matches that used to be free on Globo (stv equivalent). Now you need a subscription AND to pay per view.

And scouse hibees point about nit cancelling illustrates the problemmatic even people that don't want to see English footie dominate due to tv revenues they like thei Spanish or Italian or german so subsidise the likes of the EPL and spl regardless.

For mr money is only
Part of the problem the realm problem is a willingness or ability to coach technical skills and tactics and them to be embraced by the players.

[Moulin Yarns]

Businesses take risks when needed. In the case of the SPL TV deal, Sky don't need to take risks, because at the end of the day, the clubs need them much, much more than Sky needs them.

With that in mind, Sky have the power to make pretty much whatever demands they like, and the clubs will agree, as they must have done to this clause, assuming it exists. But in any case, Sky aren't demanding that Rangers must be in the SPL, they are saying that if Rangers aren't going to be in the SPL the deal must be renegotiated to reflect the changed commercial realities of that scenario. That's their prerogative to suggest, and the clubs to agree or disagree, and it would appear that they agreed.


I don't really have much of a problem myself with them putting that in, from their point of view it makes perfect sense. If folk want to get angry about it, blame the clubs for being willing to bend over for the scraps Sky are willing to throw at them.

This constant thought that we need the TV deals is rubbish, no TV, regular 3pm kick-offs would be more attractive to the actual fans to turn up and support their team.

To back up this FACT, the following is taken from the PWC report from last year.

Even before the collapse of Setanta, the SPL was in a unique position compared to the other big leagues such as the Premiership, Ligue 1, Serie A and the Bundeslige,
with ticket sales forming the SPL’s most important revenue stream (with TV and radio deals being second and sponsorship taking third place).

This means the SPL clubs have been hit relatively harder by the declining attendance levels than other major leagues.

Add to this the average 18,277 fewer fans attending their team’s home matches during 2009/10 compared to last season and the average resulting impact wipes
£10m off the SPL’s aggregate revenue.


In essence, we (outwith the OF) don't need TV as much as the Old Firm do. A more attractive and competitive league without the OF and TV would, IMHO, bring increased attendances, so OFGTF, BSKYB GTF. Give football back to the people that matter, the fans who pay at the gate (or buy season tickets) to watch their clubs in the flesh.

PS looking forward to going to the pub to watch the game tomorrow!!!!

[The_Todd]

The let the Sky deal end. The world didn't end during the BBC deal when Sky last pulled out. It forced some clubs to take a reality check and tighten the belt, but that's a good thing anyway.

[Tha Cabbage Kid]

maybe bbc alba will provide us more coverage on tv :agree:


we may loose out on SKYtv but lets face it. was the money we got all that great?

we may have less money but we will have a better chance at winning something. celtic do need rangers to a certain extent and so will loose more than the other clubs if sky pull out.

and once all the SPL teams are competiing for the chance to win stuff out league will be much better! im sure.

[Tha Cabbage Kid]

......and with the teams competing for silverware maybe sky may reinvest. or maybe even another company.

scottish football is poor because of the predictability. i think.

[ScottB]

This constant thought that we need the TV deals is rubbish, no TV, regular 3pm kick-offs would be more attractive to the actual fans to turn up and support their team.

To back up this FACT, the following is taken from the PWC report from last year.

Even before the collapse of Setanta, the SPL was in a unique position compared to the other big leagues such as the Premiership, Ligue 1, Serie A and the Bundeslige,
with ticket sales forming the SPL’s most important revenue stream (with TV and radio deals being second and sponsorship taking third place).

This means the SPL clubs have been hit relatively harder by the declining attendance levels than other major leagues.

Add to this the average 18,277 fewer fans attending their team’s home matches during 2009/10 compared to last season and the average resulting impact wipes
£10m off the SPL’s aggregate revenue.


In essence, we (outwith the OF) don't need TV as much as the Old Firm do. A more attractive and competitive league without the OF and TV would, IMHO, bring increased attendances, so OFGTF, BSKYB GTF. Give football back to the people that matter, the fans who pay at the gate (or buy season tickets) to watch their clubs in the flesh.

PS looking forward to going to the pub to watch the game tomorrow!!!!

While I personally agree, I suspect the clubs do not, rightly or wrongly.

I would imagine a Rangersless SPL would end up with a smaller, but more equally distributed TV deal.

[ackeygraham]

Yes I agree totally.

Agree with that - rather see a more competitive but maybe lower standard league than result to rule bending to make sure that one of the ugly sisters get's there way....

[DH1875]

Here's what I don't get. What if they don't go into liquidation and stay in administration and then have to sell all their players and have to play kids and the dross they can't get rid off. Who's to say they'd finish top 6 next year and what if, even better, they ended up in a relegation battle and ended up going down. What happens to the TV deal then? Will we just cancel relegation that year?

Anyone?

[The Baldmans Comb]

Slightly difeerent scenario but when we were winning all the time in the First Division, our attendances went up - same thing would happened if we were actively challenging for the SPL title - it also means if say Aberdeen/Dundee UTD were in running for the title, that they would bring a massive support to ER

As stated elsewhere this is a complete myth.

Overall attendances actually dropped by around 1,500 though you have to factor in the drop in
the away support but even once you do that the Hibs support alone at best was just about the same.