Doncaster and Regan are at it over TV deal

I read an interesting article in the Herald this morning which dismisses claims that the current deal with SKY/ESPN of around £15m per year would drop to just £3m should Sevco not be allowed into division one or a cobbled together SPL2 and their games not broadcasted live.
The article points out that Rangers in 2010/11 accounted for 27% of viewers which is around 1 quarter in old money. So how does that equate to the 75% drop in TV income the Armageddon scenario being touted by Reagan and Doncaster? The truth is it does not ,it is a total fabrication designed to scare clubs in the lower divisions into voting Sevco into division one or risk the amount of money the SFL receive in a ‘trickle down’ payment they receive from the SPL each year.
Figures from that season show that viewing figures for that year were 247,000 per game. If you take rangers out of the equation the figure drops to 180,000 viewers. So how does that lead to a drop of 75% in revenue?
The answer is it does not. The article goes on to prove what we all know already. The current TV deal we have is poor compared to other countries with smaller TV audiences who like Scotland have a major European league next door. Countries like Austria and Switzerland have the Bundesliga next door. Both these countries have similar audiences to Scotland yet their TV deals are similar or better with Austria brining in £13.2m per year and Switzerland £20m per year due to the also having deals with their local TV sports or TV channels.
So basically it comes down to this. 1. Our TV deal is very poor and 2. Regan and Doncaster are deliberately massaging the figures in order to scare SFL clubs into voting Sevco into the first division.
Both of these statements are true so therefore both these guys should hand in their resignations at the earliest opportunity. They are not serving or promoting Scottish football which is their primary role. Instead they are scheming to help out one company which has never played football in Scotland.
The actual article is here and worth a read. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/knowing-our-rights.18109410. IF you read the article it’s actually makes what’s going on here look worse but I’m in a rush so I don’t have the time to go through it all in this blog.

Comments

  1. Celtic and Rangers took a large chunk of that money if I remeber correctly. So that being the case makes it even less of a hardship for the smaller clubs because they’re getting a percentage of an even smaller amount.
    By that I mean if there is 16m (for example) and Celtic and Rangers take 5m each (for example) then 6m is spread between 10 clubs giving 600k each.
    If the new deal is reduced to to 10m and Celtic take their 5m then there is 5m between 10 clubs giving 500k each – a drop of 100k.
    However, any new deal will not allow Celtic to get the same as before so Celtic’s 5m reduces (to say 2m) would reduce meaning the smaller clubs actually get a larger amount.
    10m less Celtic’s 2m leaves 8m shared amongst 11 meaning they get around 770k each – an increase on previous deal.
    I’ve picked rough numbers for my example but regardless of the numbers, the arithmetic will always be that the smaller clubs don’t take as big a hit as being made out.
    Or am I naive about the whole thing?

  2. Celtic and Rangers took a large chunk of that money if I remeber correctly. So that being the case makes it even less of a hardship for the smaller clubs because they’re getting a percentage of an even smaller amount.
    By that I mean if there is 16m (for example) and Celtic and Rangers take 5m each (for example) then 6m is spread between 10 clubs giving 600k each.
    If the new deal is reduced to to 10m and Celtic take their 5m then there is 5m between 10 clubs giving 500k each – a drop of 100k.
    However, any new deal will not allow Celtic to get the same as before so Celtic’s 5m reduces (to say 2m) would reduce meaning the smaller clubs actually get a larger amount.
    10m less Celtic’s 2m leaves 8m shared amongst 11 meaning they get around 770k each – an increase on previous deal.
    I’ve picked rough numbers for my example but regardless of the numbers, the arithmetic will always be that the smaller clubs don’t take as big a hit as being made out.
    Or am I naive about the whole thing?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.