Now that we are at the end of the league season, and with respect to the job still to be done at Tannadice and McDiarmid Park, it seems like a good time for a post holocaust report.
Fig 1 Average Weekly Attendances SPL 2011-2014
Peppered around this page are three charts and a table* showing the attendance figures for the SPL in the last three seasons. A school kid could tell you that there is a positive trend in those charts and figures, but the people who run our national sport will look you straight in the eye and tell you “that can’t be right – Armageddon is coming!”
It is one of the most ridiculous and mendacious situations I have ever come across. The people who run our national game, aided and abetted by those in the MSM (sans the eye contact though) are actually trying to persuade us of how awful our game is and how unsustainable it will be in the absence of one, just one, club.
Think about that. The SFA and the SPFL trying to talk us out of supporting the game unless we all recognise the unique importance of one, just one, club. That is what has happened, no matter how they try to spin it. And despite evidence to the contrary contained in these figures, not one of them has admitted to an error, never mind the downright lies that they told to support the position they held, the one where anyone speaking of sporting integrity was mocked and ridiculed.
Whilst growing up as football supporter in the 60s, one of things I was constantly bombarded with via the medium of the tabloid newspapers was that football clubs should be grateful for the publicity afforded them via their back pages. These were probably reasonable claims, especially in the light of the relative lack of access to players and officials conceded to the hacks in those days, and the pre-eminent cultural position in which they helped to place football. Alongside that, the broadcast media, particularly Archie Macpherson’s Sportscene and Arthur Montford’s Scotsport could be relied on to talk the game up. Of course, there was something in it for the papers – sales. The more column inches devoted to the national sport, the further northward their sales, and consequently advertising revenues travelled.
Fig 2 Avg. Attendances excl Celtic & Rangers
The situation was further cemented by the fact that the press in that ante-interweb era held a monopoly over the exchange and dissemination of information. That symbiotic, win-win relationship between football and the press was as much a part of football reality as the Hampden Roar. It also endured for decades. The press would talk up the game to such an extent that folk often remarked that they hadn’t realised how much they had enjoyed a particular match until they had read Malky Munro or Hughie Taylor’s report the next day. Archie Macpherson is on record as having said the same thing about legendary commentator David Francey, “It was a much better game to listen to than to see!”
Today that symbiosis is broken. The press themselves, in print and in front of microphones consistently belittle the product, talk of crises and Armageddon, of our own version of the Eisenhower domino effect of clubs going to the wall one after another.
Aided and abetted by the two chief bureaucrats in charge of Scottish football, Stuart Regan and Neil Doncaster, who have consistently helped to hammer home the message that Scottish football is not good enough, and cannot sustain itself financially without Rangers, a club that could not itself sustain itself financially to the extent that it is being liquidated.
At a time when Scottish football was clearly in crisis, and badly in need of sponsorship which could mitigate the effects of that crisis, the press and the authorities sought to strengthen their own negotiating hand by making negative claims about the state of the game which never came to pass, and for which they have never apologised. The actual situation, which would not have been hard to predict had anyone actually bothered to analyse the business of Scottish football, is summarised quite easily by saying this;
- Since Rangers’ liquidation and subsequent absence from the top league, the average home attendance of the other clubs has INCREASED overall (See Fig 2).
- In this season, the other clubs have added 50,000 fans to home attendances compared to 2011-12 (the last year Rangers were in competition).
- In that time the league has been won (twice) by Celtic, and the other honours have been claimed by St, Mirren, Aberdeen, Celtic and (either) Dundee United or St Johnstone.
- In that time, both Dunfermline Athletic and Hearts (who both had historical financial problems) entered – and exited – administration after fan-led buyouts.
- Dundee United have cleared off their bank debt.
- Kilmarnock have restructured their bank debt, freeing the club from a precarious long-term situation.
- League reconstruction has allowed some money to trickle down to the second tier clubs in an attempt to mitigate the immediate effects of relegation and to reward ambitious clubs.
Looking at the table of attendances above, it is pretty clear that immediately upon Rangers exit, the overall figures took a dip. However there was little difference the in the figures if you leave Rangers out of the equation (Fig 3) – despite Celtic’s attendance taking a hit that year (down by around 5,000 per home match).
Taking Celtic out of the calculations, it is clear that there is a 6,000 uplift in this average (Fig 2).
It is still undeniable that less people overall are watching football (Fig 1), but the trend is upward if one leaves the Ibrox club out of the picture.
Furthermore, this statistic exposes the double edged sword that is retention of home gates. The fact that gates are not shared is predicated upon the notion that the bigger clubs do not depend on the smaller clubs for income. And since the smaller clubs are no longer recipients of big club largesse, their fortunes are not affected, at least not as much as was suggested by the Regans, Doncasters and Traynors of this parish. The “Trickle-Down” theory of Reganomics said otherwise – but clearly and demonstrably it was wrong.
The abandonment of gate sharing has made Scottish football less interdependent than it once was, but the irony is that it works both ways. There is hardly a club in the country that depends on Rangers for their own existence, and here is the news; small clubs are no longer financially dependent on the former Old Firm.
Fig 3 Excluding Celtic
The fact, that is F-A-C-T, is that Scottish Football attendances in the top division are on the increase. The absence of Rangers has made no appreciably negative difference to any other club, far less caused a catastrophe of biblical proportions.
Even if the fools who were the harbingers of our doom were simply guilty of making an honest mistake, it is clear that they are uncontaminated with the slightest notion of how the game in this country operates. The Old Firm may be dead, but the OF prism is still being peered through by Stuart Regan, Neil Doncaster and the vast majority of print journalists. The latter who failed to honour that age-old football/press symbiosis because they believed, erroneously that David Murray’s dinner table was the hand that has fed them for over a century.
The irony is that as job opportunities diminish in the print sector, so too will the fine dining and patronage. I think they call that evolution.
Two years ago, in the wake of the fans’ season ticket revolt which saw the new Rangers forced to apply for membership of the league and begin at the bottom, those same MSM hacks taunted fans about putting their money where their mouths were. The fans responded splendidly as our statistics demonstrate, but typically there has been no recognition of this either at Hampden or in the media.
And the message from those fans is this: Scottish football is not dying. Not any more. At least not as surely as it was when David Murray started to choke the life out of it in the late 80s. The supporters are returning in numbers to see a competition untainted by the outrageous liberty-taking and rule-breaking of the last couple of decades, and all but one club has emerged from the mire of the Moonbeam Millennium looking forward to a new era.
If authorities allow the new era to thrive by restoring sporting integrity to the agenda, then the numbers, like the opportunities available to more and more clubs, will grow. The question is … will they?
Admittedly, these figures, like any set of statistics, can be cherry-picked to suit almost any argument that you care to construct. The fact remains though, that whilst it would be fanciful and ridiculously over-optimistic to claim that they bear witness to a burgeoning industry, it is utterly dishonest to conclude that they represent financial Armageddon. Armageddon? Aye right!
Jagsman
It’s myself who compiles the viewing figures and hope to have the final version for this season out over the next 24hrs or so.
In terms of what the SPFL does on this, that spreadsheet, compiled from BARB figures is what they use and I’ve been told this by them. Those who look after the marketing, etc are very competent and very willing to listen to fans and I would be surprised if they weren’t regularly viewing this site to see what good ideas are being floated. The improvement and depth of their YouTube channel has been driven by fan feedback, something I was fortunate enough to have been involved in.
Not the first time I have said it and it won’t be the last but just a reminder:
There will be NO administration at Rangers!
With Hearts and potentially Hibs moving down a league will the sfa need to up their payments to BTSport to accommodate lesser facilities at venues in that league…?
John Clark says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:36 am
———-
I’m afraid don’t know how and on what basis a judge makes his judgment known. Presumably, the parties in the case are told first, privately, before the judgment is made public. But what the rules are about how long the gap can be between the parties being told and the public release of the written judgment, I haven’t a scooby.
Since the UTTT hearing, Lord Doherty has been hearing other cases, doing other work, and. presumably,making written decisions in those. I don’t know whether he has a ‘boss’ who chases him up to arrive at a judgment within a certain time from the hearing!
It would be interesting to see how the whole thing works. For all we know, the parties’ legal teams might already have had the verdict. If so, then it’s odds on that someone in the MG camp will leak, before the official release date.
=========================================
I think one thing’s for sure and it’s that no matter what the decision is there will be a PR gloss put on it. This can’t be done openly prior to the public release of the decision but as the parties get it prior to public release then they can work on the PR strategy.
It’s also possible to ‘leak’ to trusted journos in advance – again no matter what the actual decision is – to prepare the ground and create the best PR outcome for the client even if they lose. Although perhaps in Scotland given the track record of the majority of the SMSM it might be more appropiate to substitute ‘leak’ with ‘waterfall’ 😆
I have never seen any details setting-out the period between a decision being communicated to the parties via their legal reps and being made public and it may well be a rubber band depending on the complexity of the decision but there again there might be a fixed period to allay any taint of partiality.
As to Lord Doherty being ‘chased-up’ I don’t rule it out in the sense of a casual mention such as ‘How are things going with di dad di da? just to keep those above in a general ‘loop’. But I really doubt that any direct pressure would be applied and I doubt that Doherty would be asked to explain the detail of his decision as that can only be done probably at length and in detail in his decision.
As to how long it takes him well it’s the old ‘how long is a piece of string?’ This is a very important legal decision not for Rangers but in UK tax terms and Doherty will want to get it right because he will be well aware of the strong possibility of it being appealed no matter the decision he makes.
The decision may well be Doherty’s Magnum Opus which make’s Heidi’s forensically detailed dissenting minority decision in the FTTT look like a quick read or, indeed, it may be as short as the majority FTTT Decision but even should he agree with that decision IMO his findings will be based on more solid grounds in terms of the evidence and the law to be applied.
So I’m afraid I can’t answer any of the questions and I’m pretty sure that the only one who can is Doverty 🙄
So perhaps for the UK taxpayers: ‘Good things come to those who wait albeit most impatiently’ 😈
JimBhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 9:14 am
With Hearts and potentially Hibs moving down a league will the sfa need to up their payments to BTSport to accommodate lesser facilities at venues in that league…?
===========================
Well that depends on where Rangers end-up playing their matches I suppose 😎
Sorry to dwell on the TV thing. There seems to be a consensus that there was no ‘old firm clause’ and I think that would be right enough. The alleged payments however seem to focus on a shortfall on a promised annual viewing figure – the tv equivalent of footfall. If such a figure was promised then it would have been promised in the full knowledge that x and only x old firm games would give them that figure. Any less and they would be reimbursing the guy with the contract as then appeared to be the case.
As an aside, well done Ryan. The one thing the televised games involving sevco weren’t was irrelevant – not solely but especially with regards to viewing figures. That said, it is a long held view of mine that to promote (as in actively market) one team is to deprive another. Since Sevco currently command 40 odd percent of the viewing figure with the other 20% (giving CFC the other 40% obviously) needing coverage, where do you draw the line on continuing to promote the big two regardless of their circumstances to some kind of, and I am hesitant to use the term but can think of no other, a general good of the game.
To put it another way. If the Spanish Headlines last year were “Real Madrid conquer all the diddies,” and the headlines this year are “P!sh Real cannot conquer all the diddies” at what point does someone at Athletico say hang on, is that not a tad unfair!
Joethebookie says:
May 20, 2014 at 9:21 pm
Like Eco’ I don’t see any £ advantage to Sevco over payments to BT to show Sevco games, all I see is just another cost to all the other teams in Scotland to cover their demise
Maybe not a direct benefit but surely their advertising revenue would increase for televised games.
Are teams not given a bit of cash per appearance? If so is it only the home team or is it both teams appearing? Or am I confusing that with other leagues?
Just checked on AIM and there is no announcement wrt RFC and no trades listed yet today. That might mean nothing of course as it’s seldom a busy share in terms of daily trades.
But if the info posted yesterday isn’t simply malicious and has any hint of truth in it then I would have expected some kind of regulatory statement probably before now and certainly by mid-day.
I have not repeated the info as I have no means of knowing it’s accuracy and I have never believed that companies should be brought down on rumours no matter the company concerned because ordinary people can lose their jobs out of it with all the resultant consequences and misery that brings in its wake.
Auldheid says:
May 20, 2014 at 6:03 pm
Rate This
The TRFC Grief Progress List
Denial – over
Anger- subsiding
Bargaining – ongoing
Depression – moving in from the East.
Acceptance – still a way off.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
Denial – Of any truth detrimental to their uberlegen manifesto.
Anger – Prevalent for decades.
Bargaining – Foreign concept to those who always get their own way.
Depression – Ongoing since 1967.
Acceptance – NEVER
Smugas says:
May 21, 2014 at 9:42 am
Sorry to dwell on the TV thing. There seems to be a consensus that there was no ‘old firm clause’ and I think that would be right enough. The alleged payments however seem to focus on a shortfall on a promised annual viewing figure – the tv equivalent of footfall. If such a figure was promised then it would have been promised in the full knowledge that x and only x old firm games would give them that figure. Any less and they would be reimbursing the guy with the contract as then appeared to be the case.
As an aside, well done Ryan. The one thing the televised games involving sevco weren’t was irrelevant – not solely but especially with regards to viewing figures. That said, it is a long held view of mine that to promote (as in actively market) one team is to deprive another. Since Sevco currently command 40 odd percent of the viewing figure with the other 20% (giving CFC the other 40% obviously) needing coverage, where do you draw the line on continuing to promote the big two regardless of their circumstances to some kind of, and I am hesitant to use the term but can think of no other, a general good of the game.
====================================
In the not too distant future new technology will make the TV debate irrelevant. the new internet-based TV platforms which have arrived place TV production and screening in the hands of even tiny niches businesses.
I reckon football clubs once they see the revenue potential will be right in there. If I was 20 years younger I would be riding this wave which will be even bigger than desk-top publishing. Mark my words it’s a game changer.
As I said in an earlier post it’s difficult to know exactly what happened here without knowledge of the contracts involved and the actual discussions. It may well have been a lousy deal for Scottish Football but it may have been the only deal there was.
I’m not a great defender of the SPL but I don’t know enough to make my mind-up where the chips fall on this one but it’s another one we need transparency and answers on. Not necessarily the actual figures as I could see a commercial confidentiality justification but certainly in the principles involved and the justification employed in reaching whatever decision was taken.
Rantinrobin re. UTT decisions – see link for the UTT hearings and register info (Murray Group Holdings
Ltd reference is FTC/15/2013, receipt of HMRC appeal 28-01-2013). You’ll see that some cases from 2009 haven’t been resolved as yet.
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf
ecobhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:06 am
====================================
In the not too distant future new technology will make the TV debate irrelevant. the new internet-based TV platforms which have arrived place TV production and screening in the hands of even tiny niches businesses.
=================================
Don’t disagree that it will become easier to get content out there with the new technology, however, it is the content which is the real challenge.
Thistle had their own TV coverage in the early noughties and while just about watchable as a fan, you would have been hard pushed to charge money for it. Covering football isn’t as easy as it looks with regards to commentary and camera work so unless a club has a budding David Francey or Jack Cardiff then the niche business will produce niche content…
upthehoops says: May 21, 2014 at 6:04 am
Like everything else to do with Rangers, MP has to be seen to be better and more expensive. Over the years I have read various challenges to the widely quoted and unchallenged cost of £14M to build. Celtic quoted a figure of £8M to build Lennoxtown. On the comparisons of the two, Radio Clyde fairly recently spent some time telling us MP was the much better facility. I have no idea having visited neither but for much of the Scottish media the default position was/is that everything to do with Rangers is much bigger, better, more fancy and grander than any other club.
===========================
UTH – The chairman’s statements in Rangers own accounts gave the build figure as increasing from £10M in 1999, to £12M in 2000, then to £13M in 2001 (Nov). The place opened in July 2001, so one would expect that the £13M figure was accurate.However, subsequent reporting seems to have taken the £14M figure as the accepted one.
I wonder if SDM ever made a quote “For every £8M Celtic will spend in 2007, Rangers will have spent £13M in 2001”
Whilst I’m not surprised by the escalating numbers, I’m surprised that it hasn’t been indexed linked to some relative cost at today’s prices. Oh wait! It has. The Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation in the accounts is £14M. So basically, it wouldn’t cost any more to build it today than it did 13/14 years ago.
With apologies for continuing the BT debate. Would you go into a sweet shop and ask for a bag of mixed sweets but while handing over the money insist that the shopkeeper refund you for any sweets you didn’t get maximum enjoyment out of having already consumed them? If BT wanted to show Rangers games why was it paid an inducement to do so even if the contract BT took over from ESPN permitted them to show 10 Rangers matches per season? Whether it is permitted or guranteed it surely didn’t insist that BT use the allocation. Did Hibs not refuse BT permission to show the play-off decider with Killie because they had fulfilled their allocation of televised fixtures?
Originally from the “Celtic Research Twitter” account but STV and the Record have also since run with it with the RTC twitter account also backing it.
Finally there have been more than a couple of posts in the last 48 hours or so suggesting purchasing RIFC shares benefits RIFC/TRFC. Unless it is part of the predicted 43.4m rights issue or another issue agreed by EGM/AGM of RIFC it doesn’t. The money does not go to RIFC/TRFC it goes to whoever is selling the shares and unless they are oneof the luckyones who paid 1p per share like Ally then those poor souls are almost certainly taking a loss.
easyJambo says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:31 am
2 0 Rate This
upthehoops says: May 21, 2014 at 6:04 am
Like everything else to do with Rangers, MP has to be seen to be better and more expensive. Over the years I have read various challenges to the widely quoted and unchallenged cost of £14M to build. Celtic quoted a figure of £8M to build Lennoxtown. On the comparisons of the two, Radio Clyde fairly recently spent some time telling us MP was the much better facility. I have no idea having visited neither but for much of the Scottish media the default position was/is that everything to do with Rangers is much bigger, better, more fancy and grander than any other club.
===========================
UTH – The chairman’s statements in Rangers own accounts gave the build figure as increasing from £10M in 1999, to £12M in 2000, then to £13M in 2001 (Nov). The place opened in July 2001, so one would expect that the £13M figure was accurate.However, subsequent reporting seems to have taken the £14M figure as the accepted one.
I wonder if SDM ever made a quote “For every £8M Celtic will spend in 2007, Rangers will have spent £13M in 2001″
Whilst I’m not surprised by the escalating numbers, I’m surprised that it hasn’t been indexed linked to some relative cost at today’s prices. Oh wait! It has. The Depreciated Replacement Cost valuation in the accounts is £14M. So basically, it wouldn’t cost any more to build it today than it did 13/14 years ago.
====================
Would the initial build cost not have included the land purchase price? The DRC would not need to pay for the land again.
Para Handy says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:19 am
ecobhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:06 am
====================================
In the not too distant future new technology will make the TV debate irrelevant. the new internet-based TV platforms which have arrived place TV production and screening in the hands of even tiny niches businesses.
=================================
Don’t disagree that it will become easier to get content out there with the new technology, however, it is the content which is the real challenge.
Thistle had their own TV coverage in the early noughties and while just about watchable as a fan, you would have been hard pushed to charge money for it. Covering football isn’t as easy as it looks with regards to commentary and camera work so unless a club has a budding David Francey or Jack Cardiff then the niche business will produce niche content…
=========================================
Yip but I think there are a few factors which perhaps you haven’t taken into account. The colleges are staring to turn-out a lot more film trained students and before long the out-of-date courses for print media will be converted into courses producing video-journos.
The best journos I have ever come across in terms of the quality of their work have tended to be photo-journos and all over the world video-journos are starting to come to the fore and make a big impact as well as their living.
Because, as you put your finger on, content is King and the demand for it will be insatiable in the coming years.
And the traditional media is shedding staff right left and centre so there are people who can either be hired on a freelance/contracted basis for a fee to cover matches for a smaller club’s TV output to subscribers or indeed to supply the content on a purely freelance basis.
What is really driving this technology is the the advances in video equipment in terms of broadcast capability and quality at very low prices compared to even 5 years ago.
The actual internet TV platforms aren’t much harder than putting together a website which these days kids do with no problems and the fast broadband introduction and spread has really opened the door. Things were held back for a bit because of the cost of commercial data storage but as the whole thing has started to take-off and competition has arrived with new providers then even the memory thing has become manageable for small budget producers many of whom are stretching to unlimited deals and selling off segemenst to other content providers.
It really is happening out there and yea it might be a bit amateurship to begin with especially as you think back to the pretty crude clip-art when desktop publishing arrived. Nowadays computer generated graphics and simulations are on a level all of their own for quality and innovation and it’s spawned a whole new industry.
This is the sector to invest in and a lot of money will be made but as always a lot of start-ups will go belly-up for a variety of reasons so, as always when parting with hard earned cash, do your own research and don’t be dazzled by sales patter and exciting prospectuses.
Today’s Daily Record article- http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/cost-spfl-televising-rangers-matches-3579505 – seems to confirm that the broadcasters were, in fact, guaranteed their 4 “old firm” games per season as part of the contract.
Assuming, of course that the Record’s “SPFL source” can be relied on.
Well looks as though RFC is still trading despite reports to the contrary althought the price is beginning to head south again after the recent upward blip.
At 10:00:04 there was a sale of 9,721 shares at 26p.
neepheid says:
May 21, 2014 at 11:13 am
Today’s Daily Record article- http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/cost-spfl-televising-rangers-matches-3579505 – seems to confirm that the broadcasters were, in fact, guaranteed their 4 “old firm” games per season as part of the contract.
Assuming, of course that the Record’s “SPFL source” can be relied on.
================================================
I seem to remember it being reported back in 2012 maybe 2013 and it might have been in the Record as well that Sky confirmed the Old Firm Game clause. But I’m a bit busy at the moment with other things to start hunting for it but pretty confident I read it. Doesn’t necessarily make it gospel but it has to be weighed in the balance IMO.
SKY Old Firn Deal
Ah tae Hell – searched and found it at the very top 😆
From DR 14 June 2012 by Mark McGivern. Worth a read and I have undernoted link. Well either the clause has been there for a long time or everyone is lying and tbh I doubt if McGivern would as I think he’s a reasonable journo. But it boils down to how good his Sky ‘source’ is.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-in-crisis-sky-tv-threaten-1129215
tykebhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:58 am
On a narrow interpretation you are correct. However where non-shareholders want to participate in the rights issue then the only way they can do so is to buy shares from existing shareholders and, of course, that money doesn’t go to the club.
There is also the scenario where existing shareholders might want to increase their holding to gain additional benefit from the rights issue so they also have to buy from fellow shareholders and again that money doesn’t go to the club.
But buying activity like this can drive the share price up which results in the share price set for a rights issue ending-up higer than it would have been which obviously results in a higher amount raised overall..
Of course the share price can also be driven down for various reasons which would have the opposite effect.
Basically all I am saying is that these pre-rights issue dealings can have a significant effect on the capital raised by the club so their potential importance should never be discounted.
Rangers director Sandy Easdale in new legal threat to rebel supporter over e-petition
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-director-sandy-easdale-new-3580533
Just when I thought this whole affair couldn’t get any more farcical Sandy Easdale is threatening to take legal action against Craig Houston because when anyone signs the SoS petition then a copy is sent to Easdale’s address.
Of course this kind of harassment is standard practice for the Bears and they use it as a matter of course against anyone perceived to be an ‘enemy’. Nice to see a Rangers Director standing-up and drawing a line in the sand and clearly indicating this type of behaviour just isn’t acceptable.
It has been widely used by the so-called Land ‘Experts’ against many companies, organisations and individuals to intimidate.
However I think this display of angst might see a new flood of football fans from other teams signing the SoS petition and, of course, I could never condone such tactics 🙄
I really wonder if anyone is giving Easdale PR advice because IMO this is making him look very weak, solidying the support against the Board and generally giving everyone a good laugh. It also appears that Easdale has dropped his previous threat of legal action against Houston.
Dearie Dearie Me 🙄
ecobhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 11:47 am
SKY Old Firn Deal
___________________________________
The news items that confirm the existence of the clause are very non-specific – and playing at semantics. There was a discussion about this at the time, but in essence here is what I concluded (with a bit of help from some people I spoke to in the broadcasting industry).
Sky were guaranteed 4 OF games per season only in the sense that they had “first dibs” over the other broadcaster (ESPN/BT), who naturally also wanted a piece of the action.
Then it became easy to say that Sky were guaranteed four OF games per season, leaving out the clear implication was that this was only if there WERE four OF games per season.
The broadcasters were playing the same game as the SPL. They wanted Rangers back ASAP, but there could never be a situation where those games were guaranteed, because it would effectively deem Rangers and Celtic to be immune from the effects of relegation.
They were playing games then, and they are playing games now. Given the furore at the time, had there been such a contract, there would have been unequivocal statements backed up with published extracts of the contract itself.
In an attempt to draw them out (on what would have been a scandalous ditching of sporting principles) there were in fact a few people who alleged that Doncaster was being economical with the truth. Nada – only more carefully worded comments.
There was no such clause.
As an addendum, I don’t think anyone would have been overly upset had it been stipulated that the Sky contract would have to be renegotiated in the event that either Celtic or Rangers were relegated. That would make sense from the broadcasters’ point of view. It would also have been an easier tale for Doncaster to tell as well. But he didn’t. I think that Sky may have been playing hard-ball, but hadn’t a leg to stand on simply because neither relegation nor liquidation could ever be contenanced for Celtic or Rangers and so was not reflected in the contract at all.
In other words, I think that Sky were as inept on their side of the contract as Doncaster was on his.
What if Sky had threatened to break the contract and take their chances in court?
The SPL might have taken fright at the potential costs involved in a protracted battle. Few principles, little intellect, and absolutely no bottle. These are the guys in charge of our game.
ecobhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Rangers director Sandy Easdale in new legal threat to rebel supporter over e-petition
——————————————————————————————————————
This is the S of S petition http://chn.ge/1gIvNBd
I see that the petition is also being automatically copied to Graham Wallace as well. I agree with you, Ecobhoy, it would be childish to sign the petition just to annoy these already overburdened directors of RIFC and TRFC.
tomtom says: May 21, 2014 at 11:09 am
Would the initial build cost not have included the land purchase price? The DRC would not need to pay for the land again.
=============================
I’m sure that you will be correct.
Rangers Accounts show that Freehold Properties increased by £12.38M in value over the 3 years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Celtic’s Accounts show a corresponding increase of £8.21M over years 2006 and 2007.
The value of the land will be factored into those sums. Also, land is not normally subject to depreciation while buildings are.
@BillyBoyce Yeah that would be petty…
Wasn’t there a legal bill of around £250k for the LNS enquiry that rangers were supposed to pay… Does anyone know if that has been spotted on accounts or maybe just forgotten?
My reading of this TV deal “scandal” is that there was already a contract in place that did NOT stipulate 4 OF games a season… so the question is why choose to rip it up and renegotiate it for a lower amount before it expired? Why then also incur further costs by covering Sevco games as part of the new deal?
That surely is the story here? Or am I missing something?
Share price and the price at which any rights issue might be pitched.
The listed share price for RIFC shares is utterly meaningless. For most listed companies, it is a proper indication of how the market values that company’s shares. That is because there is substantial trading in their shares.
The last 15 trades in RIFC that I can see give an average of slightly less that 1000 shares per trade – that is about £270 per trade. In the context of a company with 65 million shares in issue such numbers are beyond negligible (0.02%).
I could make the share price jump from 27p to 30p by spending about £50,000. Clearly I have done nothing to either increase the value of RIFC nor has what I have done increased the value of anyone’s shareholding. You try and sell 100,000 at 30p. Nope – no buyers. So its not worth 30p even though that might appear to be the share price.
No one is going to be fooled by a stated share price of (say) 30p at the time of any rights issue. Appearing to “drive” the share price up now will not affect the price that anyone would be prepared to pay to buy shares in a rights issue.
Normally the quoted share price is the major factor in setting a rights issue price. Here it is not.
Andygraham66 says “If I had a pound for every morning I woke up the Govan club would be going into administration at 7am AIM opening hours for official releases
I’d have enough for a good night out”
=============================
If I had a pound for every morning I woke up and they had actually gone in to admin I could have bought the whole jing bang aff o’ thon SDM.
Doncaster’s non answer on the “guaranteed 4 OF games” in the TV contract.
https://soundcloud.com/celticresearch/doncaster-4-times-per-season-sportsound-30-4-12?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=twitter
…from a lesser beancounter rag, “Accountancy Age : “in the last six months we have taken on three managing partners in London and picked up two big ticket complex cross border non-insolvent restructuring deals…”…ffs would someone please translate that little mouthful for me?
The speaker being no less than Paul Clark of Duffer and Duffer (remember them?) on the opening of their new offices in the most expensive offices in London…in the Shard.
I think Neil Doncaster has been giving him lessons in management speak!
TSFM says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm
There was no such clause
===============================
Personally unless I had seen the contract I would be unable to make that statement and my position remains that I don’t know if such a clause existed or even a form of words in the contract existed that made it clear there was an intention of 4 x OF Games per season.
What I am clear about in my own mind is that the SPL appears to suffer from rapid eye-blinking in hardball contract negotiations with whatever broadcaster is across the table from them.
I wonder if that’s why PL was introduced into the TV contract negotiations to add a bit of backbone although it’s hard to regain lost ground when you have devalued your product and flogged it at bargain basement prices.
Since the article is headed “Best Practice”…I thought I really should share it with my fellow bloggers…I hope the link works…it really is a hoot, bearing in mind the 2012 RFC Administration fiasco.
http://www.accountancyage.com/aa/interview/2344054/best-practice-duff-phelps-paul-clark?utm_term=&utm_content=Best%20Practice%3A%20Duff%20%26%20Phelps%27%20Paul%20Clark&utm_campaign=AA.Best_Practice_RL.EU.A.U&utm_medium=Email&utm_source=AA.DCM.Editors_Updates
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-age-of-unreality/
Good article especially the Geo Carlin quote… 😀
easyJambo says:
May 21, 2014 at 1:15 pm
Rangers Accounts show that Freehold Properties increased by £12.38M in value over the 3 years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Celtic’s Accounts show a corresponding increase of £8.21M over years 2006 and 2007.
The value of the land will be factored into those sums. Also, land is not normally subject to depreciation while buildings are.
====================================
Not sure that this is just a ‘valuation’ increase as Celtic was obviously been buying properties and the increase could come solely from the additions or be a mixture of the additions and revaluation and there might even be some disposals in there.
I don’t remember Rangers buying anything at that time so any increase there would probably be down to revaluation.
One of my fave G Carlin’s quotes was, “By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth”, fits nicely into the rangers story.
Re: the SPL and SPFL TV deals
=========================
Surely the story here is that the SPL then SPFL was just not very good at valuing and then negotiating the sale of the TV rights ?
I am presuming that the negotiations with the TV companies had been conducted in-house.
With the latest ‘cash back’ revelation will club chairman start to query the effectiveness of Doncaster in securing the best TV deals ?
We have already seen compelling evidence that the SPL/SPFL deals were ‘poor’ – relative to other Euro leagues’ deals.
Would outsourcing the negotiating process to a proper media rights ‘broker’ company seem like a better option for club chairmen to consider ?
ecobhoy says: May 21, 2014 at 2:42 pm
Not sure that this is just a ‘valuation’ increase as Celtic was obviously been buying properties and the increase could come solely from the additions or be a mixture of the additions and revaluation and there might even be some disposals in there.
I don’t remember Rangers buying anything at that time so any increase there would probably be down to revaluation.
=========================
The numbers I gave were only “additions”
The dates for Rangers 1999-2001 coincide with the construction of the Murray Park facilities, as does Celtic’s 2006-2007 construction of Lennoxtown.
Celtic’s 2007 accounts also have a footnote “Included in Freehold Land and Buildings are assets under construction amounting to £8.22m (2006: £1.53m) which are not depreciated”
I can’t see any reason for the increase in fixed asset values for both clubs being anything other than the construction of their respective training centres.
The comments on the SoS petition page makes a very interesting vox pop – ignoring a few obvious mischievous but amusing comments. The strongest theme is that although the rank and file are beginning to wake up to the fact that all is really not well, they are still far from understanding the true gravity of their club’s situation. And, more to the point, what it would take for them to get what they want. Their unanimous target is the current board of directors, who by and large are simply employees of the owners and do what they are told to do by the owners who prefer to remain nameless because they have seen how previous employees have been treated. The consistent call for control by Rangers Men shows a perplexing lack of rational thought since these heroes of olde are now rarer than Motherwell billionaires and after all didn’t Rangers Men create this whole farrago in the first place.
A few fag packet sums show that instead of signing petitions, the mass of previous season ticket holders plus a few thousand more need to pledge around £2,000 each over say 5 years to enable trustworthy and competent people to buy back the club, company and assets before rebuilding an efficient and frugal football club to get back to European football. But this option will only work if done at lightning speed before the owners deliver the coup de gras and scarpa with the cash.
The SoS petition http://chn.ge/1gIvNBd
.TSFM says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm
The news items that confirm the existence of the clause are very non-specific – and playing at semantics. .
====================
Today’s Record article seems pretty specific and unambiguous to me.
Clearly what we now require is a clear and unambiguous statement from Doncaster as to whether or not the Sky deal guaranteed them 4 “old firm” games per season. A simple question, with an equally simple yes/no answer. If the answer is yes, then that is an absolute outrage, a total affront to any concept of sporting integrity, since it gave the premier league a huge financial incentive to keep both clubs in the top flight.
If the answer is no, then what are these extra back payments all about. Surely you just say to the broadcasters “you have a deal, and we’re sticking to it. If you decide you want some “Rangers” game from the bottom flight, we will square it with the SFL, but the extra costs of that decision are yours to sort out. If you don’t like the costs, just stick to SPL games as contracted.”
I’m clearly missing something here. It just makes no sense to me unless there was indeed a commitment to 4 “old firm” games in the contract. Otherwise why would the SPL pay money to the broadcasters to ensure that a non-member gets TV coverage?
From James Forrest on the TV deal. I agree with him.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/another-brick-in-the-wall/
To be clear the payments being reported were to ESPN and subsequently BT neither of whom were in the running for any OF matches which were guranteed to SKY. It does appear that the deal guranteed them a certain number of Rangers matches not involving Celtic and presumably similarly a number of Celtic matches not involving Rangers. If they didn’t want to take up that allocation presumably they would have been free to do so (subject to not passing the quota for a home club which I believe is why Hibs turned BT Sport away from their last league game). The question is why did it require an inducement to cover these games? The SPL/SPFL should have turned round and said fine you don’t want to cover TRFC games how about covering Premiership and Championship games instead.
I have now seen the Daily Record report on the TV contract payments stuff.
Its difficult to form a view on this without knowing exactly what the rights of the various parties were at the time.
Looks like TV companies were unhappy about viewing figures dropping if they continued to cover only SPFL games. Which is reasonable.
So they said “we would like to show Rangers games as well”. Which is a reasonable commercial thing for them to want to do.
What is important is whether or not at that point, the TV deal in place already allowed them to cover such games (i.e. did the existing TV deal only cover SPL games at the time?) My guess would be that the deal was an SPL only deal. So the SPL could not on their own deliver the SFL games to the TV companies.
So at the time when the TV companies said “we want to show Rangers” the question is – what bargaining power did the TV companies have?
Seems like it was either (a) a 4 x C v R fixture guarantee; or (b) the existing deal was coming to an end (with the implied threat that without R’s games being included in a package the next TV deal would be substantially less). Either would be decent commercial leverage and (b) does not necessitate any lack of integrity on the part of SPL (unlike a 4 x RvC arrangement).
So the SPL cut a deal with the SFL whereby SPL acquired the right to sell the SFL games. Which seems reasonable.
But TV companies say “covering away Rangers games costs more because set up for coverage costs more at Elgin that at Motherwell. That has to be taken into account in the deal. What are you going to do about that?”
Which is reasonable.
So SPFL said, “we will contribute to the costs of you covering those games. ”
Which is not unreasonable (provided the whole reason the SPL was in the position of having to negotiate such a new deal was not because they had guaranteed 4 x CvR games each season. To have done so in a world when football clubs go bust (even big ones) and in particular given the state of the finances at R since (at least) 2010 would have been bordering on negligence.)
brilliant blog from James,I also agree with you both.
=================
neepheid says:
May 21, 2014 at 4:36 pm
From James Forrest on the TV deal. I agree with him.
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/another-brick-in-the-wall/
Campbellsmoney says:
May 21, 2014 at 4:53 pm
I am pretty sure that the TV deal only covered SPL games- the deal was with the SPL after all. The SPL had to make an additional payment of around £800k to the SFL to allow them to include the Rangers games in a revised deal. The TV deal in question was for 5 years from November 2011, but this was renogotiated on worse terms in July 2012, following the Rangers insolvency. So clearly it was not the imminent expiry of the deal that gave the broadcasters leverage here.
I would normally post links to the source of my statements, but unfortunately I’m on a borrowed android device, and can’t work out how!
tykebhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 4:48 pm
They may well have done so but the TV company who is after all paying the money quite equally could have said nope to meet our viewing ficures we want a deal that includes Rangers’ matches. In fact, it would have been commercial stupidity for them not to have taken that approach.
The No 1 remit of the commercial TV companies is to make a profit and not to showcase Scottish Football which is down to the Footballing Authorities.
I keep saying and haven’t changed my position that without seeing the contract and knowing what negotiations took place in terms of what the TV company demanded I can’t see how I can come to a well-informed conclusion on what was done and why it was done.
Yea I might think various things and a bit of me might want to believe certain things but I believe the evidence is lacking at this point.
neepheid says:
May 21, 2014 at 5:19 pm
@Neepheid – when you’ve figured out that Android the links will be interesting.
But if a 5-year-deal deal was struck in November 2011 then why did it have to be renegotiated in July 2012?
You say it wasn’t the imminent expiry of the deal that gave the broadcasters leverage. But IMO it was exactly because of the Rangers insolvency it was renegotiated and this can only mean one of two things IMO.
Either the insolvency wrecked the 5-year contract or the broadcaster decided to put the boot in with no legal justification because they realised Scottish Football was in a seemingly ‘rocky’ position and they cut cut their contract costs.
Either way there are questions to be asked as to why Rangers demise could possibly wreck the deal – was there a clause that guaranteed a sey number of games starring them either against Celtic or other teams.
If it wasn’t that but more to do with the broadcaster seizing a chance to cut costs then we have to look at why the SPL caved-in to the demands. A bit of bottle could have won the day just by simply telling the broadcaster involved that if they wanted to destroy their reputation and future income then by all means beggar Scottish Football.
I actually believe they would have blinked first in that scenario but I don’t think it could ever have happened because the senior Hampden suits were weak and useless businessmen IMO.
Phil teasing on Twitter again:
From an excellent source:”keep an eye on South Africa for developments.”
If it became apparent that Dave King was demonstrably not in a position to be the saviour of Sevco would The People buy Season Tickets?
Tic 6709 says:
May 21, 2014 at 5:15 pm
3 0 Rate This
brilliant blog from James,I also agree with you both
——————————————————————————
I agree also as nothing would suprise me with the safe sevco approach from SFA. Save our game SFA and vacate Hampden.
Billy Boyce says:
May 21, 2014 at 6:07 pm
———————————————————————–
Teasing=What I can safely put out there at this point in time while protecting sources.
#NUJ
If there were a guarantee of 4 OF games written into the TV contract, it would also mean that both clubs would have to be in the same half of the table at the split. …. It’s a fix!
Has anyone considered showing Sandy Easdale just how easy it is to set up a block function on undesirable emails?
Martin says:
May 21, 2014 at 6:58 pm
Has anyone considered showing Sandy Easdale just how easy it is to set up a block function on undesirable emails?
====================
Nope.
Keith Jackson.May 19th 2014
sports news writer of the year….
It had become clear the board of the Rangers International Football Club PLC was not calling the shots inside ibrox, Rather it was those who made up the so-called “football board” who were really in charge.
This all-powerful football board is also known as Rangers FC Ltd.
(sports news writer of the year and he misses out a THE) 🙁
I’m just catching up on the papers
Noticed a different approach being proposed by one of the fans on the petition site :
“We should get the Army to take over the stadium and get rid of spivs by force. I know a lot of the regimental lads and they are grateful for the partys we put on for them so they will be well up for it.”
We seem to have stepped well over the line marked ‘sanity’!
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Cluster One says:
May 21, 2014 at 8:04 pm
Keith Jackson.May 19th 2014
sports news writer of the year….
This all-powerful football board is also known as Rangers FC Ltd.
(sports news writer of the year and he misses out a THE)
————————————-
That is exactly why he has that title, he is smart enough NOT to insert “The”. He knows it should be there so didn’t forget but he is doing exactly what is expected……. Always follow follow the party line!
A further thought on the suggested use of military force…
If only these guys were ‘Reds’ instead of ‘Blues’ perhaps they could have appealed to Putin to step in and annex Govan? I’d go with that one….
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Ernie at 1:52pm- haha, that was brilliant! 😆
Is Ally contactable on his world wide scouting mission ,just to update him on the war chest position.
vyourhavingalaugh says:
May 21, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Is Ally contactable on his world wide scouting mission ,just to update him on the war chest position.
=====================
Cinderella McCoist will be in daily contact with the Pumpkin Palace desperate for word from the Prince who would be King.
This TV deal issue is more incompetence and fear than machiavellian planning, other than perhaps on the side of the TV contract negotiators, I reckon.
In a market where the overwhelming majority of the viewers support two teams, it would take a media company moron not to put in at least a penalty clause should they not be able to televise a certain number of their games per season and include games between them as part of those.
The football side were between a rock and a hard place. Accept such a clause when at the time, you think the chances were low that it would ever be an issue or refuse it and have them offer less due to the risk?
A further, further thought…
These trod-upon fans may not be Reds but they are Bears – is that not enough for our Russian friend Mr Putin?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
ecobhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 2:29 pm
TSFM says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm
There was no such clause
===============================
Personally unless I had seen the contract I would be unable to make that statement and my position remains that I don’t know if such a clause existed or even a form of words in the contract existed that made it clear there was an intention of 4 x OF Games per season.
__________________________________________________________________________
Eb
I have never been to Australia, but my personal position is that it exists.
There was no such clause
Some of The Rangers fans appear to be understanding some of the issues although still through blue tinted spectacles. This is from Hildy on gersnet.
http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?63883-Rangers-In-Crisis
ernie says:
May 21, 2014 at 1:52 pm
39 2 Rate Down
Andygraham66 says “If I had a pound for every morning I woke up the Govan club would be going into administration at 7am AIM opening hours for official releases
I’d have enough for a good night out”
=============================
If I had a pound for every morning I woke up and they had actually gone in to admin I could have bought the whole jing bang aff o’ thon SDM.
……………………
I`m just happy to wake up for nothing !
TSFM says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:23 pm
9
0
Rate This
ecobhoy says:
May 21, 2014 at 2:29 pm
TSFM says:
May 21, 2014 at 12:31 pm
There was no such clause
===============================
Personally unless I had seen the contract I would be unable to make that statement and my position remains that I don’t know if such a clause existed or even a form of words in the contract existed that made it clear there was an intention of 4 x OF Games per season.
__________________________________________________________________________
Eb
I have never been to Australia, but my personal position is that it exists.
There was no such clause
======================================
Some people believe God exists and others don’t. For many thousands of years people didn’t know that Australia existed and only realised it did when they saw it.
Of course the aborginal people who lived there had always known it was there even though the supposedly more enlightened on the planet didn’t – I wonder what that tells us?
I haven’t a clue if the clause or some form of words exists in the contract wrt to the issue under discussion but, as always, I am open to hearing the evidence either way and if it’s strong enough I’ll hopefully be able to come to a conclusion that’s more likely to be right than wrong.
Giovanni says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:30 pm
=============================
That item was so dripping with that old sense of entitlement not to say arrogance I’d say that in some ways they have learned nothing. As the Pars boss said no team is entitled to anything unless it wins it by its own unaided efforts on the park. If you are in a lower division it’s because that’s what you are entitled to.
Edit: on re-reading I maybe overstate the case but I still think there is a strong flavour of what I describe above though there are points which accept truths which their fans have rejected until recently.
Giovanni says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:30 pm
‘..This is from Hildy on gersnet…….’
———–
What a wonderful piece!
‘Hildy’ has beautifully captured the essence : ‘Society has changed, but maybe Rangers has never really changed at all. It gives the appearance of being an anachronism, clinging to a past that it can’t let go instead of embracing a future that it never foresaw.’
But, in my opinion, he/she ought to have referred to the ‘the SFA’ and its anachronistic view that the dead RFC was the heart and core of Scottish Football, come right, come wrong.
We have all seen the consequences of that blind belief which:
-undoubtedly permitted ( even if JUST by negligence) the incredible, unquestioned profligacy of SDM;
-caused their paralysis when the Big Tax case caused that frightened failure of a cheat to offload the club to a known shyster in highly questionable circumstances
-conditioned the SFA to accept meekly the insults, threats and mockery of that other shyster CG,
-permitted them to agree secret deals at the expense of truth and sporting integrity ( deals which might have included deals with broadcasting companies !) in order to favour, in an extraordinary and unjustified way, a new club as if it were the same club which, for all the historic protection it had been afforded, nevertheless died in shame and disgrace.
But, I ask, where were, are, all the other Hildys among those who supported the dead club and now are anxious about their new club? Where is the kind of ‘leader’ that Hildy’s very calm, rational piece ( except maybe for the reference to ‘enemies’!) should call forth?
GoosyGoosy says:
May 21, 2014 at 11:03 pm
‘…I`m just happy to wake up for nothing !’
———-
I like it. 🙂
John Clark says:
May 21, 2014 at 11:56 pm
————————————————————————————–
Indeed John.
Caught out by a shifting zeitgeist…
The old xenophobia and hubris was suddenly out of date and out of place.
TSFM says:
May 21, 2014 at 10:23 pm
…And the aboriginal peoples didn’t even know it was called Australia till they were telt!!
A new way to win friends and influence people, not. From The Herald.
So why not just supply CH and SoS with his TRFC email?
Response to Doncasters statement.
———————-
Kevin O’Neill
7:42 AM on 22/5/2014
He’s lying. It would have been illegal for the spl to agree to ensure that both Celtic and rangers finished in the top six together. Why did the daily record not bring that up?
Have some professional pride
=========
Who the hell ever agreed that there Must be 4 games a season. ? The big Hoose must stay open, eh.