Florentine_Pogen Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Accepting this as true, does that mean SPL Ltd will be in breach of contract with Sky for being unable to deliver this? Huh ? How can the SPL be held accountable for a club going breasts up ? Is the CBI accountable to it's members shareholders if one of it's members goes to the wall ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliche Guevara Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 You hear nothing from the SFA for the benefit of the Scottish game for about 120 years, then when Rangers are in trouble it's a mad desperate scramble to revolutionise the game within a fortnight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Leighton Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Accepting this as true, does that mean SPL Ltd will be in breach of contract with Sky for being unable to deliver this? Not SPL's fault that Ra Peepul have gone bust, perhaps they could all sue the person truly responsible for the loss of Rangers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RotWeissEssen Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 The winner of the league gets 17% .. what exactly was unfair about that , it was up for grabs by all and sundry ? Sorry you couldn't compete, you favour the sport where we all come first and there's no losers ... Maybe golfers should just all split the prize money. Darts players should all get the same .. just enter ... Get a grip ... You probably advocate that school children shouldn't learn to compete either ... You have more fans than us and that's not fair ... boo hoo ... That's what it boils down to in the end. P.S .. I have no problems with the sponsorship money being split more equally ... we'll still have the CL games and cash to look forward to .. I take it the club that finishes 2nd this year will be pooling the money with the other clubs and ensuring it is divided up equally given their strong moral stance on this matter ... and the fans will be demanding they do so? The money should be distributed more equally you agree so there should be no problem when Rangers leave ,this should happen ? I would also say that when a club is on TV the home club should get a small sum to allow for the fact that many fans will simply watch the game on TV. My point was that Celtic and there fans will moan once they split the TV more fairly(1st should get more than last just not to the extent) Since you seem to agree there is no problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mozam76 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm sure it's been mentioned previous, but there is a Sportsound special on Radio Scotland tonight. Featuring will be Tom English and Jim Traynor (). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 You hear nothing from the SFA for the benefit of the Scottish game for about 120 years, then when Rangers are in trouble it's a mad desperate scramble to revolutionise the game within a fortnight. Weird isn't it? Suddenly the SPL is falling over itself to give the 1st a playoff. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee4Life1893 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm sure it's been mentioned previous, but there is a Sportsound special on Radio Scotland tonight. Featuring will be Tom English and Jim Traynor (). Looking forward to my drive home now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florentine_Pogen Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm sure it's been mentioned previous, but there is a Sportsound special on Radio Scotland tonight. Featuring will be Tom English and Jim Traynor (). That guarantees my absence. I'm still at a loss as to why the BBC give this useless fat mess a platform to regurgitate his Daily Retard propaganda. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm sure it's been mentioned previous, but there is a Sportsound special on Radio Scotland tonight. Featuring will be Tom English and Jim Traynor (). What time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cutty Old Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm up for reforming the Ayrshire Football Association. We could have Talbot, Cumnock, youze mob, Troon, Medda, etc etc. Killie would be the dominant force in Ayrshire, like we aren't alreadys and demand the lion's share of BBC Alba money! No, you cannae have the Ayrshire Cup, the oldest trophy in Scotland. It belongs to the oldest professional club in Scotland and youze are no getting it!! Have a Charles btw for a good post, this is geting tedious Your scenario reads like all kinds of reasonable compared to the corrupt practices that have been taking place up the road. We will get a hold of the Ayrshire Cup. All it takes is a wee bit of complacencey, just turn your back once and we'll whip it away. well, the likliehood of winning it on the park is so remote that we may need to stoop to a new low to achieve our goals. Do you know any other club who engaged in that type of behaviour ? Clue: they wear wore blue and they're not Kilmarnock. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboRobbo Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) Still doesn't make them responsible as to how the Scottish game spends the money they provide .. I honestly fail to see any possible link as to how that makes them responsible. They buy the product at price agreed by both parties. They air the games and make their profit. The SPL and the clubs receive the money. How does the above well thought out argument apply ... honestly enlighten me. Try a few paragraphs this time just to expand it this time and give us all a clue. Though I suspect it will not changes SKY's responsibility one iota ... Pretty simple. Sky has lots of viewers who watch Scottish Football on their channels. Scottish football doesn't cost them very much for the number of viewers it gets. (costs about 2% of what the premiership costs, but gets WAY more than 2% of the viewers). Scottish games get about 200k viewers, compared to 1M viewers for premiership matches. Unless Sky wants to throw away one of it's better watched and cheapest sports, they will have to stick with SPL. Edited July 3, 2012 by JamboRobbo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homer Thompson Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 The contract has nothing do with the sporting nature. The contract only provides sponsorship on the basis of what it is worth to them in regards to selling advertising space and subscriptions. It a business deal nothing more and nothing less and they are perfectly entitled to be clear on what basis they are buying the product and in what state it should remain throughout the contract. It's entirely about money and business. How the clubs and the SPL conduct themselves is an entirely different matter. Sporting nature has nothing to do with a business contract, they buy the product .. you provide it. I totally agree with what you say, sporting nature shouldnt have anything to do with a commercial contract, but in this case the SPL has agreed to a contract that clearly does He states the SFA were railroading them into accepting Newco into DIV1 and doing a deal. SGA states .. They don't want Newco parachuted in via a SPL relegation into DIV1 (which was the only option to DIV1) Those statements are clearly at odds. Now since he made a public statement condeming the SFA I would imagine they have to deal with it in exactly the same manner if any manager had spoken out whether it be against the SFA or a referee. They cannot be seen to let that slide. What statements are at odds? The current state seems to be that the SFA have announced they wont let newco into the SPL but, seem, to be supporting the straight into division 1 route. This is exactly what he is accusing them of railroading the clubs into If they were going to relegate them they would need to have accepted them into the SPL first - which was never going to happen. And the SFL couldn't have stopped them getting into SPL1 in that case, so why bother to blackmail them into it. No, this was Cockwomble trying to strong-arm the SFL into breaking their own rules by promoting a new team 2 divisions before they had even played a game. The SPL proposal to punt newco into the first division didnt involve accepting them back into the SPL first. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coqofthenorth Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Huh ? How can the SPL be held accountable for a club going breasts up ? Is the CBI accountable to it's members shareholders if one of it's members goes to the wall ? Probably not explaining myself very well and certainly not advocating that anybody should sue anyone else. I'm no lawyer or contracts expert, I'm just trying to understand all the panic around the Sky deal. As I understand it, the SPL is a private company. If a business enters into a contract with another business then it is bound by the terms of that contract. If the SPL Ltd as represented by Doncaster et al have contractual obligations then failure to deliver would technically be a breach. It's just business as somebody has taken great delight in stating already. Or is the Sky issue, really not that big an issue and there's some 'wriggle room' to re-negotiate given the current predicament? Do the clauses about the requirement for 4 OF games even exist? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Fitlike Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I wonder how Ernie Walker and Jim Farry would have handled things..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owsley Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 If we all boycotted everything to do with Traynor he would be signing on before you know it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Koop Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 What hospital do you work at Raigmore at a guess, given there's a grey and red budgie in the garden. Short commercial break then back to the fitba. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ric Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I have no problems with the sponsorship money being split more equally ... we'll still have the CL games and cash to look forward to .. And here is the main problem. Due to the limited amount of money in the SPL the amount gained from just a few appearances in the CL would outweigh any money gained from finishing first in the league. When the duopoly already coin in the vast majority of the money then garner CL money along with other revenue streams is it any surprise that other clubs complain they can't compete. I take it the club that finishes 2nd this year will be pooling the money with the other clubs and ensuring it is divided up equally given their strong moral stance on this matter ... and the fans will be demanding they do so? Considering Rangers and Celtic who have continued to finish in both 1st or 2nd for nigh on 25 years and have made no bones about a more even distribution that's a stunningly arrogant position to take. That said, you are a supporter of a club that doesn't want competition and have supported the duopoly for decades so should anyone be surprised? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Garbage. What are they going to show instead, considering that they will lose everyone who subscribed specifically for the SPL? Sunday morning showjumping? Fucking hell, Sky renegotiated *upwards* in their last deal even though the competition is weaker and the old Firm are worse. That presumably means the league is still quite a draw. Lastly, and this really hasn't been emphasised enough: if Sky really didn't want Rangers to walk away, Murdock's outlets would have been all over this. They haven't. Nowhere near to the extent Glasgow's hacks have. Aa I've probably mentioned before The Scottish Football coverage is such a small part of Sky's expenditure that they're not going to be anywhere near as concerned as we are what happens to that deal. If they're paying £20m a year for something that they only think is worth £10m then they'll be irked but it's hardly likely to cause a panic at a company with a turnover of £3.2bn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyderspaceman Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 This from RM Lets be sensible here...........Dundee, Motherwell and Gretna could all disappear forever and nobody would really notice. Rangers meltdown affects everybody, because they all live of our scraps. Thats what it boils down to.........they all depend on our club, and as Malcolm Murray so eloquently pointed out, the actions of the previous custodians of Rangers has a domino effect that no other club would have caused. We've done nothing wrong,but David Murray & Whyte have let everybody down, big style. Now I realise it's just the viewpoint of one orc but it seems to reflect the outlook of a great many of them. Unless of course the general views on RM do NOTreflect those of the wider support. Unlike here on P&B .( IMO.) My point? I just don't like theminges 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz FFC Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 If we all boycotted everything to do with Traynor he would be signing on before you know it. I'm not boycotting pies and 6th courses for anyone. 0 Quote Link to comment 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.