First Team
All The Info | Rangers (A)
22nd November 2024
In response to the Old Firm, the other ten SPL Clubs have released the following statement:
Scotland's leading football Clubs today called on the Old Firm to explain any alternative plans they may have for the long-term future of Scottish football following their 11th hour rejection of the plans for SPL TV.
Ten SPL Clubs voted to back a plan they believed would help underpin the short, medium and long-term future of the game - only for the two Old Firm Clubs to vote against and deny the proposal the 11-1 majority required under SPL rules.
Now they want the Old Firm to explain to Scotland's football fans what they see as a viable alternative that will serve the best interests of Scottish football as a whole.
Rod Petrie, Chief Executive of Hibernian FC and a spokesman for the Ten, said: "We are in no doubt that the media rights lie with the League's governing body, the SPL."
"The Clubs are very disappointed at the actions of the Old Firm. By their own admission, they have been deeply involved at every stage of this 15- month process."
"It is time they came out and told the Scottish football supporting public exactly what they now see as the way forward. They have ignored the best advice received by the SPL which indicated that the business plan was robust and sustainable. They have rejected a plan which would have seen Scottish football take control of its own destiny in terms of broadcasting live football - and with it hugely valuable revenue for all Clubs."
"Now it is time they came clean, and outlined exactly what they see as a better way forward for all."
And he paid tribute to SPL Chairman Lex Gold and Chief Executive Roger Mitchell. "They deserve enormous credit for the innovative and robust proposal which was worked out."
The ten Clubs who voted in favour of the SPL TV deal refute the key criticisms put forward by the Old Firm as follows:
I. The Old Firm claims the subscription assumptions are "over-optimistic" and there is insufficient contingency for any shortfall. This is not the case. The figures laid out in the proposal were based on extensive market research conducted by NFO System 3 both within the supporter databases of the 12 member Clubs and also within the wider Scottish population. All research indicates that 200,000 subscribers was a reasonable expectation, but even if the subscriptions were halved, the channel would generate very significant revenues for all the Clubs.
2. The Old Firm maintains risks and liabilities have not been fully addressed and that the proposal does not pass their due diligence tests. The Old Firm maintains independent advice sought by the SPL from KPMG endorses their view. This is incorrect. KPMG examined three "downside sensitivities" or negative scenarios. A combination of all - in other words the worst case scenario examined by them - still sees the Channel make a substantial profit."
3. The Old Firm maintains the Channel could absorb other sources of funding. Under the base case, this is not a requirement. It would only be required in the event of initial subscription levels falling well short of the business plan. The ten Clubs regarded this as a reasonable business risk and ensured there would be no cash call on Clubs.
4. The Old Firm say there is insufficient safeguarding of the media rights of the Clubs in the event of the Channel failing. This is not correct. The rights of the Clubs would revert to the central control of the SPL in the event of the Channel failing. A fundamental point of difference has peen raised by the Old Firm only within the past few days -Rangers and Celtic wish to change SPL rules and see these rights revert directly to the Clubs, and not remain with the League governing body.
It is the contention of the ten Clubs that both Rangers and Celtic have been deeply involved at every stage in the 15 months of work around the issue of broadcast rights and plans. Representatives of both Clubs have served on working groups set up to look at all aspects of the proposal. The first clear indication of disagreement with any fundamental aspect of the proposal came in a letter written on April 2nd (four working days before the meeting).
The assertion that there has been no 11th hour change in their position is, in the view of the ten Clubs, inaccurate.
More releases to follow.
Scotland's leading football Clubs today called on the Old Firm to explain any alternative plans they may have for the long-term future of Scottish football following their 11th hour rejection of the plans for SPL TV.
Ten SPL Clubs voted to back a plan they believed would help underpin the short, medium and long-term future of the game - only for the two Old Firm Clubs to vote against and deny the proposal the 11-1 majority required under SPL rules.
Now they want the Old Firm to explain to Scotland's football fans what they see as a viable alternative that will serve the best interests of Scottish football as a whole.
Rod Petrie, Chief Executive of Hibernian FC and a spokesman for the Ten, said: "We are in no doubt that the media rights lie with the League's governing body, the SPL."
"The Clubs are very disappointed at the actions of the Old Firm. By their own admission, they have been deeply involved at every stage of this 15- month process."
"It is time they came out and told the Scottish football supporting public exactly what they now see as the way forward. They have ignored the best advice received by the SPL which indicated that the business plan was robust and sustainable. They have rejected a plan which would have seen Scottish football take control of its own destiny in terms of broadcasting live football - and with it hugely valuable revenue for all Clubs."
"Now it is time they came clean, and outlined exactly what they see as a better way forward for all."
And he paid tribute to SPL Chairman Lex Gold and Chief Executive Roger Mitchell. "They deserve enormous credit for the innovative and robust proposal which was worked out."
The ten Clubs who voted in favour of the SPL TV deal refute the key criticisms put forward by the Old Firm as follows:
I. The Old Firm claims the subscription assumptions are "over-optimistic" and there is insufficient contingency for any shortfall. This is not the case. The figures laid out in the proposal were based on extensive market research conducted by NFO System 3 both within the supporter databases of the 12 member Clubs and also within the wider Scottish population. All research indicates that 200,000 subscribers was a reasonable expectation, but even if the subscriptions were halved, the channel would generate very significant revenues for all the Clubs.
2. The Old Firm maintains risks and liabilities have not been fully addressed and that the proposal does not pass their due diligence tests. The Old Firm maintains independent advice sought by the SPL from KPMG endorses their view. This is incorrect. KPMG examined three "downside sensitivities" or negative scenarios. A combination of all - in other words the worst case scenario examined by them - still sees the Channel make a substantial profit."
3. The Old Firm maintains the Channel could absorb other sources of funding. Under the base case, this is not a requirement. It would only be required in the event of initial subscription levels falling well short of the business plan. The ten Clubs regarded this as a reasonable business risk and ensured there would be no cash call on Clubs.
4. The Old Firm say there is insufficient safeguarding of the media rights of the Clubs in the event of the Channel failing. This is not correct. The rights of the Clubs would revert to the central control of the SPL in the event of the Channel failing. A fundamental point of difference has peen raised by the Old Firm only within the past few days -Rangers and Celtic wish to change SPL rules and see these rights revert directly to the Clubs, and not remain with the League governing body.
It is the contention of the ten Clubs that both Rangers and Celtic have been deeply involved at every stage in the 15 months of work around the issue of broadcast rights and plans. Representatives of both Clubs have served on working groups set up to look at all aspects of the proposal. The first clear indication of disagreement with any fundamental aspect of the proposal came in a letter written on April 2nd (four working days before the meeting).
The assertion that there has been no 11th hour change in their position is, in the view of the ten Clubs, inaccurate.
More releases to follow.
