Interesting reading...

I am not a director of an OF club but to start a response with an insult goes to show you are on the back foot in this discussion, cheers. The logic is quite simple as far as SPL TV rights go, SKY and ESPN need to sell advertising spaces and subscriptions to justify their financial input into the SPL not many of SKY's audience are interested in any OF matches with the exception of the OF derby. ICT (as an example of a non OF club) will be lucky to have 1 televised away match in a season the remainder of their matches being at home to the OF and maybe one of Hibs or Hearts or whichever team looks like keeping within touching distance of the OF meaning that the majority of ICT fans who are interested enough to pay to see the match will be there and have no real reason to take up a new subscription or watch the ads making it less profitable for the providers of the coverage to screen matches which do not involve the OF. The other leagues are a different kettle of fish they are filled with world class players who neutrals are more than willing to pay to watch, just look at where our signings have come from in closed season to see the gulf in quality on offer to the customer. The broadcasters want to show the OF on TV and this is a huge bargaining chip when the clubs sit down and vote on the acceptance or not of a contract and the terms of the share of revenue, each SPL team has a vote in these things and agreement has been reached via due process.

Should we also demand a share of the sponsorship money the OF receive from Tennant's and the like because our fans will read the logos on their shirts?

First of the opening sentence was meant as a tongue in cheek comment and not an insult. If it was taken the wrong way then I sincerely apologise.

The point I'm tryinmg to make is that the current situation is wrong as is the TV domination by the OF. They created it by using the "we've got more fans than you" arguement. Its all swings and roundabouts. If the other teams had more coverage they could then afford the world class players. But that then brings another debate. Players are paid too much and transfer fee's are out of control.

Why should we demand a share of the OF shirt sponsor monies? Every team negotiates their own sponsorship and if we had the same TV coverage as they do we'd be in a position to bring in a bigger sponsor.

Kilda, would it be fair the the team who bring 20 fans gets the same money as the one that brings 200 or, in the case of the OF, 2000+

I am not a director of an OF club but to start a response with an insult goes to show you are on the back foot in this discussion, cheers. The logic is quite simple as far as SPL TV rights go, SKY and ESPN need to sell advertising spaces and subscriptions to justify their financial input into the SPL not many of SKY's audience are interested in any OF matches with the exception of the OF derby. ICT (as an example of a non OF club) will be lucky to have 1 televised away match in a season the remainder of their matches being at home to the OF and maybe one of Hibs or Hearts or whichever team looks like keeping within touching distance of the OF meaning that the majority of ICT fans who are interested enough to pay to see the match will be there and have no real reason to take up a new subscription or watch the ads making it less profitable for the providers of the coverage to screen matches which do not involve the OF. The other leagues are a different kettle of fish they are filled with world class players who neutrals are more than willing to pay to watch, just look at where our signings have come from in closed season to see the gulf in quality on offer to the customer. The broadcasters want to show the OF on TV and this is a huge bargaining chip when the clubs sit down and vote on the acceptance or not of a contract and the terms of the share of revenue, each SPL team has a vote in these things and agreement has been reached via due process.

Should we also demand a share of the sponsorship money the OF receive from Tennant's and the like because our fans will read the logos on their shirts?

So you are not a director of an Old Filth Club but you have 20 previous posts

Read yer feckin stoopid post - some peeple would think you are our DoF and you have been in the Heathmount :_beatme:

Edited August 13, 201015 yr by IMMORTAL HOWDEN ENDER

Why should we demand a share of the OF shirt sponsor monies? Every team negotiates their own sponsorship and if we had the same TV coverage as they do we'd be in a position to bring in a bigger sponsor.

That's kind of my point, when the share of TV money is negotiated every team has a vote, if all the smaller teams with less coverage and therefore share of the spoils was to vote against accepting the deal offered by the TV companies and the share of monies then they could well negotiate another coverage deal. As the Setanta collapse showed there are not too many companies wanting to show SPL matches so the OF are in a perfect position to negotiate a bigger share. It's business now and not just a game and right or wrong the SPL clubs voted for the current set up.