bendan

I'm struggling with the concept of *having* to watch any match that is televised. Nobody 'needs' Sky. I've always managed fine without it.

No, I don't. It was with Sky, which needed a subscription, and it will be with Premier, which will need a subscription. Why, exactly, do all semi-finals need to be free?

Has it actually been stated? If there's no deal, there's nothing to reject, nothing to put before parliament.

I agree that it does sound ridiculous, given the obvious conflict of interest, but the thing I read (forgot where) was so specific about the payments that it was hard to believe it was just made up. It's worth remembering that the SPL had a contract that lapsed if they didn't provide four games a season between you-know-who. It would be possible for the SFA to get an insurance policy that resolved the conflict of interest problem.

It's a bigger payment to the SFA, not to the teams, as far as I know. That in itself is pretty ridiculous, but if it also involved bigger payments to those teams, I can't believe it would have been passed.

You'd take out a subscription for one match? Go to the pub if you really need to see it live (which you don't)!

I agree with this. I just hope that the BBC are obliged to provide proper highlights of R1, R2 and R3 as part of the deal.

There's a lot of pish being talked, as if the SFA could have gone with BT or Sky, just for convenience, ignoring the fact neither seems to have bid. I suppose you could argue they should have just gone with the BBC part and dropped the rest, but the number of people pretending they are going to be forced to pay for a Premier Sports subscription is ridiculous.

I'll be sad to see Sky getting the lot, if that's really how things go, but it sounds like a decent amount of money at last. For a lot of clubs, this will mark the point where the SPFL distribution exceeds gate money for the first time. If the figure of £33m a year is roughly correct, that's about £14m a year more, which means about an extra £1.9m a year for the SPFL winner, an extra £800,000 for 7th place, £630,000 more for 12th. That is significant extra money, especially for the smaller Premiership teams. Even in the lower leagues, the effect is pretty significant. An extra £300,000+ for the winner of the Championship, £140,000 more for 5th, £100,000 more for 10th. Even bottom of League Two will get about £25,000 more a year.

He's quoting the suggestion made years ago that was rejected in an SPL vote because of opposition from Ross County and St Mirren (it needed an 11-1 majority). The SPL - SFL merger part still happened, as did the increased distribution to lower league (esp Championship) clubs. If you you 'have been told' then they are just proposing the same thing that was rejected before. I'd be happy with it, but most people on here were strongly opposed last time.

They might count season ticket holders who aren't present.

Because everyone says they hate playing the same team four times (or more) a season, yet we've had this arrangement for ages now. In the Premiership there is at least an argument that there's too big a gap between the top and bottom in a big league, but the gap between L1 and L2 is not that big. You'll probably say there will be lots of meaningless games, but that's because of the lack of movement allowed between the SPFL and the Lowland/Highland Leagues. I'd promote the champions of both each year. I can turn it round, and ask why anyone would want to arrange the 23rd (or 25th) to 42nd best teams in Scotland into two leagues of ten?

Despite the fact my club were one of the two who voted against, I actually quite liked this idea. There's potentially more turnover each year rather than the same teams always struggling, there's more meaningful games, and combining L1 and L2 into one league is long overdue common sense. Most fans seem to oppose, which isn't surprising when you consider how ultra conservative most are.

I have to admit they have done fantastically well to get to the group stages, and it's great to see two Scottish teams in there. I'd have preferred that to be Aberdeen and Hibs, to redress the financial imbalance in Scottish football, but I'll be happy to see the ugly sisters get some more coefficient points. The way things are going, I suspect The Rangers will get more than Celtic.

For SPFL clubs, the rules state: 'E19 - Any Club which commits a Remuneration Default shall not, except with the consent of the Board, to be given in the Board’s absolute discretion, apply to have Scottish FA Registered with it or Play any Professional Player who is not an Under 20 Player and/or who was not Scottish FA Registered with that Club at the date of the relevant Remuneration Default until the Board notifies the Club in writing that it is satisfied that such Remuneration Default shall no longer continue or subsist.' Which seems to say you can't sign new players until you have cleared existing debts to players/coaches. Don't the LL have anything similar?

In terms of licensing, yes, but there could be a big time lag between a problem arising and any reporting to the SFA. Don't the SPFL have standards regarding the payment of debts to players and other clubs?

Is it actually a thing in the Borders? I don't really know about the present squads, but Vale, Gala and Selkirk were hardly known for fielding locals, were they?

Absolutely. And given the small population and strength of the rugby club, there never seemed room for a football club playing at LL level.

It's sad to see a club struggle, but there never seemed to be any foundation behind what Selkirk were doing. I'm curious about what the Lowland League have in place to monitor football debts. I'd have thought not paying players ought to prevent a club starting the next season.

It's still a decent option for some places because of the flight path, but there's more competition, and also the direct Edinburgh - Beijing flight now.

True. That's the most irritating (and credibility-destroying) thing about the EL. Teams that have already earned huge money in the CL getting a completely undeserved post-Christmas EL chance.

I don't think that's so bad. Champions should be getting preferential treatment. The champion of the lower ranked countries gets a shot at the CL, and if (when) they fail, they have an easier run at the EL. I'd say there's an argument that if the champions of countries like Scotland/Serbia/Sweden/Norway etc (i.e. in the 15 to 25 range of ranked countries) lose in the CL qualifying, they should get an automatic group place in the EL. But there aren't enough places for every country to get one, so there has to be some who still need to qualify.

I think you're thinking about the SPFL deal. The cup ran until 2017/18. http://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/9141296/sky-sports-sign-new-scottish-cup-deal There's been no announcement on a new deal for the cup rights. https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/scottish-cup-final-may-move-from-traditional-slot-for-tv-deal-1-4750764

They are still negotiating for this season's TV coverage, which doesn't bode well for the amount paid. Likely to be much less than Sky were paying.

Yes, great advert for the league. Compares favourably (in both respects) to a lot of L1 and L2 games.