[sigmundv]

Originally Posted by HGWell

Glasgow Rangers do not exist.

I don't believe Glasgow Rangers ever existed. It was Rangers FC, but known as Glasgow Rangers colloquially.

[redknickers]

Sky EPG now just saying 'live football (from SKY Sports), no mention of Scottish SPL as it did earlier.

[Sirius]

Apologies for the "source".

Our TV deal's in the bag.

[Gerry Mandarin]

Correct link to story referenced in previous post

If the story is to believed then ESPN get the lion's share of fixtures, 35 with Sky getting 30.

[bendan]

I think Sky just want to continue with the minimum number they can that won't result in cancellations. ESPN maybe see a chance to get more live UK sport without increasing their spending. If it's just a three-year deal I think it's not a bad result for the SPL, but for anything longer than that it would be a poor contract.

[Stereophonic83]

Originally Posted by HGWell

I doubt they'll walk away but rumour has it that ESPN will pull out of the UK after next year so who knows.

ESPN have just agreed a new 3 year deal to cover Bundesliga so they wont be going anywhere

[linkinpark875]

Originally Posted by Sirius

Apologies for the "source".

Our TV deal's in the bag.

So it's about the same value as the last one? £65 million and not the new £80 million one they signed before?

[redknickers]

Rangers granted full SFA membership (Sky Text) so i expect an announcement soon

[Mark.]

Originally Posted by linkinpark875

So it's about the same value as the last one? £65 million and not the new £80 million one they signed before?

Yes, plus ~£1.5m to the SFL for their rights.

But all-in-all, not exactly the "armageddon" we were promised...

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Mark.

Yes, plus ~£1.5m to the SFL for their rights.

But all-in-all, not exactly the "armageddon" we were promised...

Indeed. Once the 11 clubs who aren't Celtic consider they are a place higher and vote for more even distribution they will probably be slightly better off.

[pedrok]

Originally Posted by Mark.

Yes, plus ~£1.5m to the SFL for their rights.

But all-in-all, not exactly the "armageddon" we were promised...

Agree, not quite 'armageddon'. Still a poor deal when compared to the likes of Belgium and Norway.

[mlt11]

The link in post 79 says £13m per year total - £12m for SPL clubs + £1m for SFL.

That compares to £13m per year for SPL under old deal and what would have been £16m per year for SPL under proposed new deal which has now been binned.

I agree with post 80 - if Sky / ESPN can lock in at that price for 5 years they will have done well and if they were to lock in for 7 years (as possibly suggested in link) then they've got an exceptional bargain.

[Rudden67]

Will the maximum 5 live home games for SPL rule still apply? Both Celtic and Rangers should have more home games live.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by pedrok

Agree, not quite 'armageddon'. Still a poor deal when compared to the likes of Belgium and Norway.

We've got poor deals because our product isn't of value to broadcasters. We have taken no action to establish our own alternative to the FAPL that is getting rammed down everyone's throat by the same broadcasters our league goes cap in hand to.

It allows Sky/whoever to low ball the SPL knowing no viable alternative has ever been put out there.

[fodg09]

SSN now reporting the deal as being done.

30 games a season on Sky plus 5 Rangers matches.

[JSemple3]

New 5 year deal for sky sports announced. Still with the 30 premier league games and 5 rangers fixtures live. Not sure of ESPN yet

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by JSemple3

New 5 year deal for sky sports announced. Still with the 30 premier league games and 5 rangers fixtures live. Not sure of ESPN yet

I'd guess the numbers in the Sun article on numbers of fixtures each will hold true.

[mlt11]

Sky has 30 games INCLUDING 5 Rangers games.

[bendan]

Seems ESPN will have 20 SPL and 10 SFL games. I'm a bit surprised that Sky will show 30 SPL games, but I suppose they will take Celtic's away games plus most of the numerous derbies that will be played next year.

If it's 5 years at £13m, that's terrible for the SPL. The last contract supposedly had a break clause at 3 years, however, so it might be the same again. Given the lack of transparency at the SPL, we are unlikely to get the details confirmed.

[Cent]

Originally Posted by bendan

Seems ESPN will have 20 SPL and 10 SFL games. I'm a bit surprised that Sky will show 30 SPL games, but I suppose they will take Celtic's away games plus most of the numerous derbies that will be played next year.

If it's 5 years at £13m, that's terrible for the SPL. The last contract supposedly had a break clause at 3 years, however, so it might be the same again. Given the lack of transparency at the SPL, we are unlikely to get the details confirmed.

I don't think it's that terrible.

For all the talk that commercial contracts were going to be lost altogether, they've got the same TV deal they had in place last year. The only change is that they are having to pay a bit to the SFL for their rights, but it's hardly disastrous.

I would reckon clubs are only going to lose just over 5% of their TV revenue, which is not even close to being any clubs biggest source of revenue anyway (unlike in England).

[bendan]

Originally Posted by Cent

I don't think it's that terrible.

For all the talk that commercial contracts were going to be lost altogether, they've got the same TV deal they had in place last year. The only change is that they are having to pay a bit to the SFL for their rights, but it's hardly disastrous.

I would reckon clubs are only going to lose just over 5% of their TV revenue, which is not even close to being any clubs biggest source of revenue anyway (unlike in England).

As I said earlier, I don't think £13m a year for the next 3 Rangers-free seasons is too bad. But in all probability, Rangers will be back by 2015-16. If the SPL still get £13m a year for 2015-2017, that is poor, given that they had previously agreed £16m a year for 2012-2017.

[bendan]

It's also worth mentioning that the SFL have done a very poor deal if they just allow the TV companies to cover 15 live Rangers games and offer no other coverage.

[Cent]

Originally Posted by bendan

It's also worth mentioning that the SFL have done a very poor deal if they just allow the TV companies to cover 15 live Rangers games and offer no other coverage.

Yes, that one is a bit bizarre. I can only assume they believe they had no chance of getting any more than that.

[mlt11]

I think it looks like:

Sky: 25 SPL + 5 SFL

ESPN: 25 SPL + 10 SFL

[bendan]

Originally Posted by Cent

Yes, that one is a bit bizarre. I can only assume they believe they had no chance of getting any more than that.

I suppose the TV companies might actually show one or two First Division matches if the third division title is already won before they have used up their 15 allowed games.