Major Restructuring in the Pipeline for SPL

[CtS]

Yeah I wasn't condemning the other 20 sfl clubs to extinction, in fact I'm not even sure what I suggested is a viable option at all, it was just an anti-OF rant.

[maverick sheep]

Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston has claimed the Scottish Premier League's 10 non-Old Firm clubs could resign from the league if Celtic and Rangers block changes to the voting system. (Scotsman)

 

Been thinking for ages we should all quit and tell the OF they can play by our rules or not at all.

[fatjim]

To be fair though Dunfermline won't need to quit because they could be playing in the SFL anyway.

[tlg1903]

not if the huns go to the wall.  They would be the team that finishes bottom as all their fixtures would be marked as 3-0 deafeat

[maverick sheep]

not if the huns go to the wall.  They would be the team that finishes bottom as all their fixtures would be marked as 3-0 deafeat

 

Tbh the way things are going it sounds as though the clubs would have to vote that through, meaning even if the rest of us vote to punish der hun, celtic and rangers will vote not to.

 

seemingly scottish fitba isn't quite corrupt enough for the cunts in charge.

[glasgow sheep]

Who agreed to this 11-1 voting structure in the first place and why?  Did they not realise the Old Firm would work together and create a duolopoly?

[Madbadteacher]

SPL...As honest as the day is long...midwinter....arctic....mibbes!

[tlg1903]

Tbh the way things are going it sounds as though the clubs would have to vote that through, meaning even if the rest of us vote to punish der hun, celtic and rangers will vote not to.

 

seemingly scottish fitba isn't quite corrupt enough for the cunts in charge.

 

But for these circumstances to have occurred the huns will have already been expelled from the spl.  Surely the vote would be should the spl or or should the spl not to re-admit them.  It follows that 11 clubs would have to vote them back in instead of having a minimum two clubs voting against the filth not being re-admitted to veto any motion.

[BobbyBiscuit]

Who agreed to this 11-1 voting structure in the first place and why?  Did they not realise the Old Firm would work together and create a duolopoly?

 

Everyone did. It was a vote of 12-0, I read the other day. The lack of foresight is staggering.

[fatjim]

not if the huns go to the wall.  They would be the team that finishes bottom as all their fixtures would be marked as 3-0 deafeat

That would only happen if they liquidated mid season. If they liquidate at the end of the season then that is a different scenario.

[glasgow sheep]

Interesting rhetoric from Hibs:

 

Supporters more important than the TV companies, insists Hibs MD

 

By STUART BATHGATE

Published on Thursday 29 March 2012 01:53

 

ONE of Scottish football’s leading administrators has called for the game to accept that supporters matter more than television companies, and to rethink the balance between the demands of broadcasters and the interests of supporters.

 

Hibernian managing director Fife Hyland said he appreciated the value of TV, and wanted the Scottish Premier League to negotiate sensibly and good faith with the TV companies when they try to agree a new deal. But he insisted that, this season at least, the demands of broadcasters had been too easily allowed to outweigh the interests of supporters, particularly when it came to deciding kick-off times.

 

“We want a good, solid TV deal, but we also need to balance that with a recognition of supporters’ interests,” he said. “At the moment, there is too big an imbalance in favour of the broadcasters.

 

“In particular, we need to have a clearer picture of when kick-off times are going to be. I’m not saying that every game should be on Saturday at three o’clock, but it would be beneficial if supporters knew that games were going to be in one of just a few slots. There must be a way of us working with the broadcasters to get better kick-off times.

 

“Football is a habitual business. People are used to turning up at certain times and days, and if that is changed around too much it affects attendances. So we need a consistent pattern of kick-offs – 3pm Saturday, 5pm Saturday and 12.30pm Sunday or whatever, as long as people know beforehand.”

 

Although attendances have been down at most clubs this season, for many, matchday receipts remain several times greater than income from broadcasting. For example, in their last published accounts, for the year to July 2010, Hearts revealed that their matchday revenues were more than two and a half times greater than their income from broadcasting.

 

The Tynecastle club’s income from TV was £1.5million, while that from matches (gate receipts plus smaller associated items such as programme sales) was £3.9m. There is an even greater disparity across the city at Easter Road, where Hibs are understood to take in around four times more from matchdays than they do from broadcasting.

 

The debate about the role of TV in Scottish football has been reignited over the past week with news that the ten non-Old Firm clubs in the SPL want to change the league’s voting structure, which at present requires an 11-1 majority for substantial changes to be passed. Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston said in yesterday’s Scotsman that he would urge the ten to resign if Rangers and Celtic continued to block democratisation of the rules on voting.

 

Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell has labelled the ten clubs “divisive”, while SPL chairman Ralph Topping urged all member clubs to stop bickering and rediscover unity. A new £80m TV contract with Sky and ESPN, which is dependent on the provision of four Old Firm fixtures a season, begins next season, and Topping suggested that contract showed the importance of Rangers and Celtic to the revenues of all SPL clubs.

 

But the figures on matchday receipts contradict the implication from Topping that the SPL is dependent on TV money, and that the other ten clubs should acknowledge the vital role played by Rangers and Celtic in securing that money. Hibs are not taking as radical a stance as Dunfermline on voting reform, but Hyland did suggest that Scottish football was risking becoming too subservient to TV and thereby damaging its relations with supporters.

 

“We know TV is important to Scottish football but it’s not the be all and end all,” he added.

 

“The be all and end all is our supporters. Without supporters the game is nothing, and we need to attract as many back to the game as possible. There are good revenues from TV, but supporters have to be sure of what we’re offering, and we need more people coming through the gate. We’re fed up of getting dislocated so much.

 

“Our game at Inverness this Sunday, for instance, was originally a lunchtime kick-off. Now it’s 3pm.

 

“It’s already difficult enough to get people to travel that distance for a Sunday lunchtime, but now some who have made arrangements find that they’ve had to change them again.”

 

Hibs matches have already kicked off at 11 different times this season, and that will rise to 14 in the coming weeks.

 

On top of Saturday at 3pm, the Hibs kick-off times so far this season have been: Saturday 12.30 and 1.30; Sunday, noon, 12.15pm, and 3.45; Monday 12.15pm; Tuesday, 7.45; Wednesday, 7.15 and 7.45; Friday 7.45. The Sunday three o’clock kick-off at Caley Thistle will be an 11th different starting time and, in the fortnight after that, Hibs will have two more times to add to their list. Their home game against Motherwell on 8 April, Easter Sunday, starts at 12.30, and their Scottish Cup semi-final at Hampden against Aberdeen kicks off at 12.15pm on Saturday, 14 April.

[Kowalski]

Some great comments there.  If only our Chairman would come out with something similar!

[Madbadteacher]

Am I the only one the reads that as "The TV deal is necessaery for them old firm cunts and fuck the rest of ye's"

 

Of course it could be my chipyMcChip on shoulder

[tom_widdows]

Seem to recall a few years back when out cup game with hibs was shifted to a thursday night (finished 2-2- Brewsters debut) the press and commentators were going on about how we were lucky because we were getting £80k for the privelage of an awkward kick off.

 

Attendance was 7905 but I reckon at the time it could have been closer to 12000 had it been a Non TV saturday KO like the other cup ties.

 

4095 extra fans - approx £81900 ticket cash (average £20 a head)

+ Pies, Bovrils etc

+ Additional merchandies in the club shop

+ Corporate hospitality

 

Could have taken in an extra £100,000+ and considering the club would have still paid for the same number of turnstile operators, catering staff & supplies, stewards etc  bending over and taking the TV cash may have cost us more than if we had said fuck off.

 

 

[Madbadteacher]

What's next?

 

The SPL sponsored by Buckfast?

[Madbadteacher]

Should really be Sir William

[Kowalski]

Should really be Sir William

 

He should be out knocking on rich oilmen's doors rather than getting involved with this pish.

[tom_widdows]

Scottish Premier League chairman Ralph Topping has claimed that two potential sponsors have pulled out because of recent events and bad publicity.

 

And he has urged the 10 non-Old Firm clubs to withdraw their attempt to change the voting structure, suggesting it is damaging its commercial future.

 

Three club chairmen have told BBC Scotland they have been angered by Topping's letter to the 10 clubs.

 

And they question whether the SPL's board can now be viewed as impartial.

 

The board arranged a 12 April general meeting after the 10 clubs called for the 11-1 majority for major changes to be reduced to 9-3.

 

But Rangers' administrator, Duff & Phelps, has since indicated that it would vote with Celtic to oppose any change.

 

"Having spoken candidly to Rangers' administrators, they have made it clear to me that they will not be supporting the members' requisitioned resolution on 12 April," said Topping.

 

"On the basis that it appears likely the resolution will not achieve the 11 votes in favour that it requires and there is now some damage being done to the league's commercial prospects and, by implication, your own club's potential future distributions, I would ask you to consider whether you would, especially given current circumstances and uncertainties, wish to withdraw the resolution.

 

"It would seem to me that progress is far more likely to be made by 12 clubs engaged in debate about the future than by forcing a vote on a resolution that on the face of it has no apparent prospect of success."

 

Topping points out that he would comply with the wishes of the clubs but points out that he has gauged the reaction of the SPL's broadcast and commercial partners to what he suggests is comment that does not paint Scottish football in a positive light.

 

"On the commercial front, I am aware of two companies who were strongly attracted to the idea of sponsoring the SPL when Clydesdale Bank's tenure comes to an end in summer 2013," he said.

 

"Both companies were viewed as serious potential bidders for the title rights.

 

"Unfortunately, both companies have now decided to withdraw their interest in the light of recent developments in the SPL.

 

"It will not have escaped your notice that Sky and ESPN have so far failed to return draft contracts sent to them in 2011.

 

"I have spoken to one of our live broadcast partners who is concerned about current uncertainties with Rangers and who at the time of our conversation was anxious to learn more about recent talk of clubs resigning en masse from the SPL."

 

The SPL did not wish to respond to the criticism of Topping's letter by the three club chairmen.

 

Im adding this to the ever increasing list of reason why I dont make serious efforts to go to the football anymore.

[mizer]

Topping can go top himself, total bullshit.

[glasgow sheep]

Have they not withdrawn because of the fucking mess that it rfc rather than anything else?

Should the rules be torn up because it's rangers?

 

Interestingly I saw someone suggest a way out of the ensuing mess for the spl may be to form the spl2 and demote a rangers newco to the spl2.  It would get around the fact there is no mechanism to send them to the sfl but at the same time be a punishment of sorts while in theory only limiting the number OF games for 1 year.

[Superstar Tradesman]

Any company would be foolish to invest in the SPL whilst too many issues are up in the air at the moment.

 

Get the current set-up to fuck, redraw new plans with fresh ideas and the investors and sponsors will flood in.

[manc_don]

It's exactly this trail of thought that has left Scottish football a complete joke and a farce.  There is no hope until people running the game get shot and realise that the game in Scotland is not about two clubs in Glasgow.  Sadly, it doesn't sound like the "rebel" 10 are going to do about it either.  Short sighted fuds.

[Penfold]

When Rangers are liquidated, they won't have a vote anyway. So to put it in Topping's language

 

"On the basis that it appears likely the resolution will achieve the 11 votes in favour that it requires when Rangers are no longer SPL members and there is now some damage being done to the league's commercial prospects and, by implication, your own club's potential future distributions, I would ask you to consider whether you would, especially given current circumstances and uncertainties, wish to withdraw your opposition to the resolution.

[glasgow sheep]

Not exactly major re-structuring but if they can't even agree on this what hope for anything more?  Always thought ditching the reserve league was a mistake:

 

Dunfermline's John Yorkston echoes under-20s league worry

 

Dunfermline chairman John Yorkston has joined Inverness manager Terry Butcher in opposing plans for a new under-20 league in Scotland.

 

The Scottish FA's Dutch performance director Mark Wotte wants to follow the model adopted in the Netherlands.

 

"I think we'd be happier with going with a reserve league," said Yorkston, echoing Butcher's recent comments .

 

"The problem we have for the senior players who are not involved on a Saturday is where can we play them."

 

The proposal will be discussed by the Scottish Premier League's 12 clubs on 12 April.

Continue reading the main story

 

    “We'll be waiting to see what division we will be in before deciding which players to offer contracts”

 

John Yorkston Dunfermline chairman

 

But Yorkston does not think that there are enough good young players to sustain an under-20 set-up.

 

"I think the SFA's keen on it because they see it as a way of developing youth and I think every Premier League club wants to develop youth," he told BBC Scotland.

 

"But we've got to be realistic here. We are not all going to have 16-18 players that are going to make it to the first team.

 

"You have about 200 kids involved in this [current] under-19 league and you would probably be lucky if 30-40 of them will have a chance of making it."

 

Wotte appears to want to limit the number of over-age players playing in the under-20 league to two per game, but Yorkston believes there should be more scope for senior players.

 

"At the moment, we have an under-19 set-up, which isn't good, so we are looking for bounce games to give these boys a game," said the Pars chairman.

 

"If we had a reserve league, we'd be able to give these boys a game and make it up with the 19s/20s and it would be better for the players, the coaches feel.

 

"They would be playing in a reserve league, which would be better kudos for them than playing under-19s, and would be playing against senior pros. So it would bring them on more."

 

Dunfermline lie six points adrift at the bottom of the SPL and Yorkston revealed they have room for manouevre should be relegated.

 

"We have been there before," he said about the financial implications of a return to the Scottish First Division.

 

"Obviously you lose a bit on your income, but you've got to bear in mind we have 18 players out of contract at the end of the season.

 

"It is a lot, but it's just the way it's happened and obviously we'll be waiting to see what division we will be in before deciding which ones to offer contracts and what size of contracts will be offered."

[Madbadteacher]

Was thinking about the whole "restructuring" the SPL thing.

 

Why does it have to be an even number of teams? With all the pishing about with kick off times these days why not have a, say, 11 team league, 40 games a season with a free week and just let the hunfuck club die and vanish?