http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27516927 [h=1]SPFL defends Scottish football broadcasting deal[/h] Scottish Professional Football League chief executive Neil Doncaster has defended the broadcasting deal agreed in the wake of Rangers' collapse. His comments follow newspaper reports that broadcasters have been paid back £750,000 while the Ibrox club have been absent from the top flight. Doncaster insists compromise was needed to continue the contract. "The consequences of the deal falling would have been catastrophic for every team in Scotland," he said. "So the absolute priority was working to agree a new TV deal with our broadcasters - and the best possible deal at that." Doncaster, who was chief executive of the Scottish Premier League before its merger with the Scottish Football League, revealed broadcasters could have walked away from the deal, which guaranteed four meetings between Celtic and Rangers each season. He said the "eight-figure investment" each season was of "enormous benefit to all 42 of our member clubs, to the clubs' own sponsors and, of course, to the fans". Never was the backing of those broadcast partners more important than in 2012, when they supported our game in its hour of need," he said in an open letter published in the Daily Record. "It was more than a decade ago that a clause was first built into the then-SPL's live broadcast contracts ensuring four Old Firm games per season were available to be covered. "Therefore, when Rangers ceased to be a member of the SPL, the broadcasters had the right to terminate the contracts immediately. "Thanks to the willingness of all those round the table, the talks were successful and we renegotiated a broadcast deal which ensured the single biggest investment in our game would continue." Doncaster explained there were conditions agreed that have led to payments to ESPN, BT Sport and Sky. "One was that the broadcasters would be able to access 15 Rangers games per season for as long as Rangers were playing in a league outwith the top tier of Scottish football," he said. "We therefore agreed a deal to buy 15 Rangers games per season from the then-SFL, to provide to the broadcasters. "Also, given the broadcasters would now incur increased costs as a result of erecting gantries, building rigging and establishing other facilities at a wide variety of smaller grounds - a significant additional cost compared with the original contract - we agreed to make a contribution to the broadcasters' expenses. "In effect, the extra costs being incurred to cover games were reflected in a small reduction in the deal with one of our broadcasters." Does anyone believe a word these people say? He should be hunted.
I wonder what they would have done if either celtic or rangers had been relegated in the normal way ? Though I suppose thats nothing a little league reconstruction couldnt solve. Think we might see that next year ?
I might have believed Doncaster if he had told this to everyone at the time, to admit it only after the rumours started absolutely reeks.
Yes, in a way I can see the logic of his argument - though I`d like to know just how hard those broadcaster partners were actually squeezing - but despite all their hot air the footballing authorities in this country still havent moved on from their Larkhall Bowling Club mentality where things can be arranged in secretive little trysts and the public can just keep their noses out.
Yes, that does not seem to be clear at all and as I said if they (The TV Companies) were acting the goat then we should have been told the script instead of more hidden deals.
Indeed. It is the hidden part which I find more disturbing. At the beginning of the whole, ahem, armageddon, if they had simply said something along the lines of it being their opinion that they should find a means to legitimately to televise rangers games, keep them in the spotlight, make a story , generate interest or whatever for the benefit of the game as a whole then you could choose to agree or disagree with that but at least be clear on where they stood
For me its the secretive way they still deal with so much - paying into the tv deal in order to accomodate rangers games being shown, the five way agreement etc - leaves them open to suspicions or accusations of not treating all clubs the same. I can see why they did the tv deal thing but I cant see why they kept it under wraps.
Normally tv stations pay out to screen football matches. Doncaster and Lawwell doing everything they can to keep the ibrox franchise in the public eye even though the public don't want to watch them And they'll do it again for the next club playing out of Ibrox
I would disagree with this. rangers or the rangers or sevco or whoever you wish to call them have a huge support, to deny this is ridiculous, so it goes to reason that if they have a large number of fans there would be some form of demand to watch them. If celtic applied and were successful in getting into the English league , but they had to start in league 2, would you expect games to be televised? you may wish to argue that the larger public have no interest in watching them, but in my opinion there would definitely be a market for it
So, it was either pay a bit, to keep the money, in other words get a wee bit less, or get who knows how much less for not showing Rangers games even though it was in the contract? You lot are ****ing bananas.
If that's the case why did they hide it for two years? There's no evidence that Sky, BT Sport or ESPN were going to walk away, we only have the word of a man who has already been shown to be a liar when it comes to dealing with The Rangers. He predicted Armageddon 2 years ago and it's not come to pass now he's saying there would have been armageddon if everyone else had not helped The Rangers.
ESPN didn't think so, they wanted this payment to cover costs of showing these non league games. That to me says that Doncaster, Lawwell etc were desperate to keep the ibrox franchise relevant. Maybe you're right, but they acted as though you weren't.
Just the way the world is, no organisation in the world explains all its decisions. Like I said I don't see the problem, I see nothing sinister about the whole thing in the slightest.
In any other context maybe but against a backdrop of closet deals and threats of armageddon surrounding the hun's demise it's was always going to appear dodgy.
I really must be missing something, but I am going to try and explain how it happened. RL you are exempt from this as I know you don't disagree with the fundamentals of it all. For the likes of Mindy and Dev, the TV stations had signed a deal to show the SPL including 4 Old Firm games, suddenly Rangers weren't in the SPL, therefore the TV stations could have pulled the plug and lets face it, they really only want to show the OF games, so suddenly the SPL are in breach of contract. The SPL, say well how about we buy 15 Rangers games from the SFL and give you them instead as we can't give you 4 OF games(which in effect just means the SPL get a wee bit less money than they first agreed). We should be thanking the TV stations for being so understanding for the original contract being broken. Is that not how it happened? Genuine question.
Its being sold as payment for extra costs incurred by tv companies for setting up their equipment....the spfl rules state that this is the responsibility of the club Anyway, I don't believe 4 OF games were a contractual obligation considering our league has a split in it guaranteeing only 3
Haha ffs which part don't you understand, the TV companies had the SPL by the balls for breaking the contract and helping pay to put up the rigging for the cameras was only part of the new contract, the other being 15 Rangers games, which the SPL had to buy from the SFL.
Actually it is a good point MTD makes about the market finding the value of the rangers games rather than this being artificially influenced by the governing body. However if the contract indeed did state a requirement for four celtic- rangers games this would be dificult and the spl would have been breaching the contract .... though it could be argued there should have been some kind of caveat already in there for either rangers or celtic not being able to fulfil fixtures.
