Comments on: Rangers and Celtic should be selling the TV rights, not buying http://dofonline.co.uk/blogs/the-edge/television/rangers-and-celtic-should-be-selling-the-tv-rights-not-buying54390/ Richard Northedge takes on corporate finance Mon, 13 Feb 2012 08:52:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Michael Flannigan http://dofonline.co.uk/blogs/the-edge/television/rangers-and-celtic-should-be-selling-the-tv-rights-not-buying54390/#comment-8695 Michael Flannigan Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:01:45 +0000 http://dofonline.co.uk/blogs/the-edge/?p=354#comment-8695 I'd like to address a couple of issues this article raises. Firstly, I understand that Sky's original bid was in the region of £120m for 5 years - has the value of sporting rights decreased in value to the extent that Sky are only willing to commit half the original bid? I think that by joining with ESPN, they are ensuring that there is no competition for their 'derisory' bid. Secondly, I'd argue that Setanta's demise was due to the inflated price they paid for the Premiership as opposed to their investment in Scottish Football. Thirdly, in terms of production infrasturcture, I understand that much of this is already in place and the clubs need only sub-contract to, for example, STV. This is a much more viable proposition than I think you give it credit for. Scottish Football has a value considerably more than the Sky/ESPN. I’d like to address a couple of issues this article raises.

Firstly, I understand that Sky’s original bid was in the region of £120m for 5 years - has the value of sporting rights decreased in value to the extent that Sky are only willing to commit half the original bid?

I think that by joining with ESPN, they are ensuring that there is no competition for their ‘derisory’ bid.

Secondly, I’d argue that Setanta’s demise was due to the inflated price they paid for the Premiership as opposed to their investment in Scottish Football.

Thirdly, in terms of production infrasturcture, I understand that much of this is already in place and the clubs need only sub-contract to, for example, STV.

This is a much more viable proposition than I think you give it credit for. Scottish Football has a value considerably more than the Sky/ESPN.

]]> By: Paul http://dofonline.co.uk/blogs/the-edge/television/rangers-and-celtic-should-be-selling-the-tv-rights-not-buying54390/#comment-8693 Paul Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:49:09 +0000 http://dofonline.co.uk/blogs/the-edge/?p=354#comment-8693 Off course they have to buy the rights from the other 10 clubs in the SPL, not their own rights. Their own rights are incidental. They could just broadcast the fours Old Firm SPL games and not pay anything to the other 10 members of their league, assuming the League Management Committee allowed it. However that might not be a viable proposition.The Old Firm couldn't survive as football entities without other teams to play against and those other teams therefore have to be paid for giving their rights to broadcast. If the Old Firm feel that they can make substantially more than the basic 25 million thought to be the amount they would have to pay out for a two year period then this would probably become a viable business plan. Off course they have to buy the rights from the other 10 clubs in the SPL, not their own rights. Their own rights are incidental. They could just broadcast the fours Old Firm SPL games and not pay anything to the other 10 members of their league, assuming the League Management Committee allowed it. However that might not be a viable proposition.The Old Firm couldn’t survive as football entities without other teams to play against and those other teams therefore have to be paid for giving their rights to broadcast. If the Old Firm feel that they can make substantially more than the basic 25 million thought to be the amount they would have to pay out for a two year period then this would probably become a viable business plan.

]]>