Sorry Celtic/Rangers, you're staying put

[Baddar]

The Premier League has rejected a plan to bring Celtic and Rangers into English football's top flight. The Old Firm pair had hoped to be part of new plans put forward by Bolton chairman Phil Gartside for a two-tier league of between 36 and 40 teams.

It was thought that there would be a top tier of 18 clubs, with promotion and relegation to and from the league.

The SPL pair would have been invited to join the lower league but the proposal was overwhelmingly rejected.

The Premier League said in a statement: "Bolton Wanderers submitted a discussion paper detailing ideas concerning the restructuring of the Premier League into two tiers with the inclusion of Celtic and Rangers.

"The clubs welcomed the additional input into an ongoing process, however, they were of the opinion that bringing Celtic and Rangers into any form of Premier League set-up was not desirable or viable.

"The other relevant ideas contained within Bolton's paper will now be taken forward as part of the wider strategic review being undertaken by the Premier League since November 2008 with the aim of providing recommendations before December 2010."

Aston Villa manager Martin O'Neill and Spurs boss Harry Redknapp had backed the inclusion of the Scottish clubs in the Premier League.

The proposals were a revival of Gartside's ideas which received a hostile reception from the Premier League's 20 chairmen six months ago.

So, it's not confirmed how long this is said to be definitely not happening just yet, but it won't be in the near future it seems.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Baddar D

[hackerjack]

Meh, it just means not this time, someone will bring it back (even if Garside doesnt) again in a year.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

It doesn't need to happen and it shouldn't happen.

Also, the English league system is fine the way it is.

[GA!]

Right now, this is the real issue:

Gartside has expressed concerns that too much money continues to flow into the coffers of the top four clubs.

Last season, champions Manchester United earned £52.3m in Premier League television money, compared to £31.6m for bottom club West Brom.

The fact that the four clubs in the Champions League also earned between £20m and £33m on top of that from European TV and prize money - and benefit from huge ticket and merchandise revenue - has led a number of chairmen of mid and lower-ranking clubs to believe the time has come for a review.

But Premier League chief executive Richard Scudamore said last month he could not envisage the 20 Premier League clubs voting for the Old Firm's inclusion, and he was proved right.

- BBC Sport

[stokeriño]

I'm not sure how they could rejig the money system in the Premier League, short of forcing Sky etc. NOT to broadcast (and pay money for) some of the Big Four games. Even if they showed more games from the bottom end of the table, it wouldn't be as much as Liverpool/United/Chelsea/etc. get.

I mean, what else is there? Rework the prize money system so that teams in 16th and 17th get more money than those in 6th and 7th? Subsidise teams with smaller stadiums and/or fanbases? Seriously, what? :/

[CraigOrion]

I say pay all teams equally and let Sky/ESPN broadcast the games they want but that doesn't really allow for 'compensation' for the big 4 getting more TV time than the minnows.

[HailtotheYo]

Split the TV money equally among the clubs. I mean, in all honesty what's the problem with that ?

Revenue sharing in the NFL has worked magically. The teams divvy up a portion of ticket revenue equally, they split merchandise equally, and they split tv revenue equally as well.

The same arguments for team x VS team y exist in the NFL as they do in the EPL. ManU vs Portsmouth is the same as say New England vs Cleveland (in terms of arguments for not sharing these things). Now, I know what arguments would be coming and I understand them completely. However, the TV rights are for the Premier League, not the top 8 and whoever they happen to play this year.

I really feel that a revenue sharing system would work for the EPL. Seriously, if the NFL can do it ...

Forbes article

EDIT - and with the NFL, there are teams that get much more 'face' time than others but that doesn't affect the monies of they get

Edited November 12, 2009 by HailtotheKing

[stokeriño]

Fair enough. However, the matter of ticket sales only deals with a small portion of the total TV revenue. I found this article about the Premier League division of TV money in the 2007/08 season (which was the first of a three season deal, so presumably the 08/09 figures were similar):

The Premier League’s TV broadcasting deals brings in £2.7 billion over three years. Of this, £22.8 million is paid to every Premier League club as part of an equal share of revenue. On top of this, clubs are paid prize-money relative to their final position in the league (Manchester United got £14.4 million, Derby got £720,000) and then earnings from the live matches in which they are featured (Manchester United, with 25 matches, made £12.1 million, while Derby got the guaranteed minimum payment for clubs no-one watches of £5.6m).

Just to confirm, United's figures of £22.8m + £14.4m + £12.1m = £49.3m in 07/08, or roughly the same as the £52.3m qutoed above for 08/09.

Of that total sum, only £12m was related to the number of specific matches broadcast on TV. Since the range was £5.6m - £12.2m, I would presume that if that were evened out then the average would be somewhere around £9m.

So, to take the 08/09 figures and factor that £3m change to United's and West Brom's totals, that would make them £49.3m and £34.6m respectively.

So yes, they could tweak things like that, but it's never going to really address the sheer scale of the gulf between them all. Certainly not to any degree that the people calling for change would deem satisfactory.

As for the NFL-style division of ticket/merchandise/etc. income, it's a far trickier prospect given the aforementioned gulf between clubs that already exists between, say, Manchester United and Burnley. As the Premier League TV money itself can only be evened up a few more million, as shown above, it's really the European TV money and the merchandise money that's the biggest divider. I cannot imagine a system where Manchester United get a £1m prize for winning a Champions League group match, but actually only get £50,000 because the rest gets divided between the other 19 teams in the league. And the matter of replica shirt sales in Malaysia and the like just boggles the mind - this is on a scale that the NFL doesn't have to deal with. And what about the lower leagues? Is promotion from the Championship now to be the chance to dip your hand in the Big Four's European and merchandise money? And the financial trouble that 'yo-yo' clubs get when the splurge in desperation to get back to the Premier League (and fail) is bad enough as it is!

[Captain Kirk]

Just means old firm aren't there until Sky decide they want it.

[Kaney]

How anyone thought Celtic would stand a chance in the Premier League when they struggle to put away teams in their so called "little pond" is beyond me. The only good thing is both Celtic/Rangers would benefit from the money down south, but it'd take them a monumental amount of time before they even approached being a threat, if ever. Both teams are absolutely dire, and it's bad enough seeing Man U/Arsenal etc stomp all over us the few occassions they do meet.

[Liam]

The quality of the main SPL teams is regressing if anything, this was a move that was needed a fair few years ago if it was going to happen. Give it a couple of years, and Celtic and Rangers will be putting out sides that would be sitting in a mid-table Championship position, rather than really being worthy of a Premiership spot.

[stokeriño]

It would be amusing to see them join the Premier League, pull a 'Leeds style' implosion and wind up in League 1. I bet the grass on the north side of the border would start looking a hell of a lot greener then...

[HailtotheYo]

The Premier League’s TV broadcasting deals brings in £2.7 billion over three years. Of this, £22.8 million is paid to every Premier League club as part of an equal share of revenue. On top of this, clubs are paid prize-money relative to their final position in the league (Manchester United got £14.4 million, Derby got £720,000) and then earnings from the live matches in which they are featured (Manchester United, with 25 matches, made £12.1 million, while Derby got the guaranteed minimum payment for clubs no-one watches of £5.6m).

Just to confirm, United's figures of £22.8m + £14.4m + £12.1m = £49.3m in 07/08, or roughly the same as the £52.3m qutoed above for 08/09.

Well that's the difference between the EPL's TV model and the NFL's. There's no difference in the money from tv. Everybody gets the same monies regardless of how many times your on TV at all, let alone in a live match or anything like that. There's also no prize money per team for how they finish in the league. There are player bonus monies and the like (for playoffs/league championships/super bowl) but each team isn't given another X million dollars or whatever.

I mentioned the NFL model simply because the EPL needs anything to start taking steps in the right direction to shore up what they can. Imagine that 3m or so per year over the course of 4-5 years for West Brom. That's huge. For them it would also be the difference between EPL tv money and EPL 'balloon' money for going down every other year. In the case of a WB (and other 'bounce' teams that figure goes up a decent amount). Also, the figure goes up if you don't up the monies in respect to how many games you have live. A flat rate increases that amount as well.

As for the NFL-style division of ticket/merchandise/etc. income, it's a far trickier prospect given the aforementioned gulf between clubs that already exists between, say, Manchester United and Burnley. As the Premier League TV money itself can only be evened up a few more million, as shown above, it's really the European TV money and the merchandise money that's the biggest divider. I cannot imagine a system where Manchester United get a £1m prize for winning a Champions League group match, but actually only get £50,000 because the rest gets divided between the other 19 teams in the league. And the matter of replica shirt sales in Malaysia and the like just boggles the mind - this is on a scale that the NFL doesn't have to deal with. And what about the lower leagues? Is promotion from the Championship now to be the chance to dip your hand in the Big Four's European and merchandise money? And the financial trouble that 'yo-yo' clubs get when the splurge in desperation to get back to the Premier League (and fail) is bad enough as it is!

I agree that the gulf is already (almost) at a point in which a complete re-structuring is needed. I'm not sure how international tv monies are divvied between NFL teams (ie - the Euro tv money). The NFL does indeed deal with the international aspect. Merchandise, tv, etc all exist for the NFL as well. Sure, the scale may not be to the extent of the EPL but the problems do exist for the league. The NFL is a global league and there's plenty of merchandise revenue streaming in from outside of the USA. The league though, promotes itself as a league and not individual teams. I think that's part of the issue. For the EPL just making even what you can (ie - tv monies, merchandise monies) will help.

Now, the system is set up differently in terms that the CL/Euro Qual teams get prize/bonus money. That's fine, and in honesty I have no problem with there being disparity there (in the fact that they get bonus monies for qualifying for the tournaments etc). With an equal model elsewhere though you've closed the gap rather than having these bonus monies further increase it. Sharing revenue with the EPL as a whole from these matches only makes the league stronger and more viable. You still reward the best teams but at the same time don't kick to the curb a club simply because they aren't ManU. I mean, unless I'm seriously missing something here, there is another team on the field when ManU/Chelsea/Arsenal/Liverpool play. For league revenues they are equal. Outside of the league is a different story. You don't necessarily have to dip into the CL/Euro money to share. Maybe just the 'prize' money for qualification, but not the monies for the individual matches/placement.

Shore up 'in house' first, and then see what can be done (if anything) about outside revenue/monies.

The different levels in the pyramid do create a problem though. The ballon payments are nice in theory but as we know, they don't end up being enough. A system though, could be sorted out accordingly I'm sure. WB is promoted and immediately steps in the sharing process. Say they survive three years and then get demoted. Upon getting demoted they are immediately put out of any 'bonus' monies for CL/euro qualifying teams. They are put back into the Championship TV revenue structure. I'm not exactly sure how the balloon payments work now, but maybe see the payments goe down on a % basis equal to how many years they were in the EPL (and thusly counted for revenue for the league). Just to use numbers - say 50% of monies, 25% of monies, and then 10% of monies or something like that.

It's just a problem that pro/rel presents and is something very hard to figure considering most clubs yo-yo rather than stick. I think the biggest issue with them is the amount of money that the Championship (and subsequent lower leagues) generate as opposed to the EPL. I honestly feel that a total FA revenue sharing system should be put in place (taking total FA revenues and finding good percentage divisions among the levels of the pyramids), but that isn't ever going to happen.

- Celtic/Rangers ... I don't blame them for wanting/trying to move. They're doing what they can to try and avoid the inevitable. The SPL is going to shit quickly (half of it is there already). I don't have a problem with them trying to move on while they are still "celtic/rangers" as opposed to nothing close to what they were. As for struggling to put away SPL minnows ... it's all about simply being in that league. It's no different than any other "top" club struggling with crappy teams in their own league. You play them year in year out and being the top club you've got the target. It happens in every sport/league. USC is consistantly much better than most college football teams yet they always struggle against a shit team in the Pac10 every year. It happens.

[ONO]

Thank God it has been rejected.

[Scott McFly]

I wish they'd stop with this every few years, it's never gonna happen. And I hope it doesn't because Rangers and Celtic suck and would only be shown up if they played in England. The standard of Scottish football as a whole is just really poor at the moment, watching some SPL matches is like watching something out of League Two.

[METALMAN]

I wish they'd go away and leave us.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Fact: If you run into an unsustainable financial model you won't be able to keep it up

Fact: If you destroy competition by buying every decent player player then it's your fault for destroying the reputation of the league.

Fact: If you buy every Scottish youth player with potential and waste them in the reserves, there's no hope in hell for a generation of homegrown players.

Yes, Celtic and Rangers are in a financial black hole... but they can't exactly pretend to be innocent for ruining international interest in the Scottish League.

Edited November 12, 2009 by The General

[Captain Kirk]

Fact: If you run into an unsustainable financial model you won't be able to keep it up

Fact: If you destroy competition by buying every decent player player then it's your fault for destroying the reputation of the league.

Fact: If you buy every Scottish youth player with potential and waste them in the reserves, there's no hope in hell for a generation of homegrown players.

Yes, Celtic and Rangers are in a financial black hole... but they can't exactly pretend to be innocent for ruining international interest in the Scottish League.

Please learn about recent football before talking about Rangers. Probably bigger than any two bit team you support.

I'll add this to show what you would expect every week. >_<

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qYdbMwdgMg&feature=related

Edited November 13, 2009 by Captain Kirk

[METALMAN]

Rangers bought Stephen Naismith from us and fucked him up.

Rangers bought Kris Boyd from us for like 20p because we were going go bust and then introduced him to cocaine.

:@

Also Steven Naismith looked like a handsome young man in a Kilmarnock shirt. Now he looks like a thug.

[Captain Kirk]

Rangers bought Stephen Naismith from us and fucked him up.

Rangers bought Kris Boyd from us for like 20p because we were going go bust and then introduced him to cocaine.

:@

Also Steven Naismith looked like a handsome young man in a Kilmarnock shirt. Now he looks like a thug.

Come on against Sevilla he looked dynamite, plus Boyd you have your big sell on clause which is something like 20%

They both play in the first team which is hardly destroying other players.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Captain Kirk