with an upcoming but seemingly futile vote on rangers admittance to the spl there will be the requirement for a vote on admitting rangers to the sfl 1st division and possibly a further vote on admittance to the 3rd. with this in mind would the clubs be choosing to cut off their nose to spite their face by refusing rangers entry to any of these scenarios?
a few of the boys at work have cancelled their sky subscriptions over the last few days. they have all to a man been asked why they have chosen to cancel...all have replied because of no glasgow rangers in the spl.
one of them asked if there was a significant number of punters cancelling their sky for this reason the sky rep advised him that there has been an influx over the last week!
are sky going to pay the sort of money they have been if rangers are in the sfl for 3 years minimum?
what effect will this have on grass roots football in this country? and what effect to the national team?
the whole thing seems like mutually assured destruction!
sky tv! - whats your position?
posted on 27/6/12
Honestly, what's so different for non-old firm fans having a league without Rangers in it, other than the reduced income from gates and TV revenue?
Fighting for 2nd instead of 3rd?
Aye, I can see a long-term influx of season books being bought by everyone based on that...
posted on 27/6/12
The thing is though Brooklyn to clubs like ICT Sky deal is half their turnover.
Most clubs know they wont get second.
posted on 27/6/12
I canned my Sky Sports subscription, after they announced the latest EPL deal. £3b....it's clear where all the dough is going and I'm fed up of helping to prop it up while they shaft the SPL...
Nothing to do with the Gers debate. Obviously if Rangers are not on Sky, I don't stop being a fan of sport and the decision to keep them in the league has nothing to do with Sky.
They have totally killed football though with the crazy amount of money they've thrown at the EPL and La Liga to make them "products"
posted on 27/6/12
...there will be the requirement for a vote on admitting rangers to the sfl 1st division and possibly a further vote on admittance to the 3rd
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point of order, there is no 'Rangers' anymore.
All the votes you refer to - should they take place - will be in respect of an application from a new company/football club to apply to join the SFL.
Until that new company has a license to play professional football in this country there are no decisions take or votes to make.
Regarding SKY - I'm sure their will be some oldco supporters cancelling their SKY subscriptions because SKY have stated that they are happy to continue with the current deal without the newco being involved.
These cancellations will no doubt be offset (to some degree) by new subscriptions taken out. Previously, many punters thought that SKY's coverage of the SPL was dominated by the old firm and - as such - did not represent value for money.
As it stands, the forthcoming SPL season looks like being the most interesting it has been for years.
Personally, I've not got much time for televised SPL games. I much prefer to be there. However, with the prospect of an exciting season ahead perhaps worth considering a subscription.
posted on 27/6/12
I canned my Sky Sports subscription, after they announced the latest EPL deal. £3b....
Same here Brooklyn.
posted on 27/6/12
I don't blame you!
SKY's love-in with the EPL has been to the severe detriment to the game in Scotland
posted on 27/6/12
An exciting season? What where one team wins the league with a 40 point gap and it's over by the second month?
Nobody wants to watch Dundee Utd v Kilmarnock bar fans of those clubs and there are hardly any to sustain it. You are soon going to find out your clubs mistake.
posted on 27/6/12
Hey , Castle....have you seen what your "man who saved Rangers" has done now ???????????????
posted on 27/6/12
Yes and I'm still not concerned. I'm more concerned about fans listening to others which is causing club instability when we don't need it.
The facts are without Green there would be no rangers and if Walter didn't come out with his 'bid' the club would be in a better position.
There are money men behind Green. It would harm our position if they showed their hand now. If the club is worse off in a year or so your would have a point, but I don't see what Green is doing wrong in safeguarding assets.
posted on 27/6/12
how would it weaken our position to name the backers ??? He promoised to do on the day he took over, he named Hart (lie!) he promised £30 m by the end of July....it wont be there. You're deluded if you're happy with this crook.