It seems that the SFL have engaged IMG who have in turn invited bids for rights to SFL football matches.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18891279

I have a bad feeling about this.

Why did they choose IMG when the Vice-Chairman at that company is one Alastair Johnstone, who was also a director and chairman at the Rangers Oldco from 2004 until 2011. Any chance of a conflict of interest?

Wasn't it IMG who arranged the SPL deal which included such an affront to sporting integrity as the 4 old firm games clause?

Why did they make the deadline so short, and over a weekend? Will all of the parties who might have been interested even have a chance to put something together?

Why are they wanting to show all the Newco away games, but not all the homegames? Have they surmised that the crowd will be lower when the game is live on TV and want to make sure that only the other clubs suffer at the turnstiles?

Because it is one of the biggest players in international sports media rights, who will be able to get the best deal.


The four-game clause enhanced the commercial value of the TV deal for the SPL clubs. This is a basic business pratcice, to maximise revenue. Believe it or not, the same principle applies at Bayview too.


Because the season starts so soon, and any delay will mean lost revenue. Revenue that keeps clubs alive. Clubs like East Fife. The SPL has to find the money to pay its annual dues to the SFL.
All TV ompanies have been aware of this situation as long as we have. They don't sit around in ignorance, waiting for the phone to ring with a surprise offer. If they want Scottish football, they will be in for it. But how many have schedules that can fit in another broadcast deal at this late stage, and how many will be put off by having no time to market their new investment?


Because they cannot show the Rangers game live every week. There will be a bigger market - and more revenue to share round - if Rangers fans have to fork out for the games that most of them cannot attend (away games).

Rangers have already been severly punished by Scottish football. Why do you continue to suspect a conspiracy to favour them?

IMG are a big name. But how do we know they get the best deals? How is that SPL deal with the 4 old firm games clause getting on?

We're selling rights to watch a sporting contest. The most fundamental thing is that the contest must be fair to entice viewers to pay their subscriptions. Is SFL3 a fair league if live TV will lead to lower home crowds at every ground except Ibrox?

The season does start soon, but the SFL clubs aren't losing any revenue. They didn't have any revenue to begin with. The SPL clubs are contractually bound to pay the settlement figure, and if they can't, they'll just have to wind themselves up and start as newclubs in SFL3, as Rangers/Sevco have done. East Fife could be promoted by Christmas if the old armageddon comes to pass. It's more important the contract is the right one than it is to collect money from day 1 of the season.

Why couldn't they show the Rangers game every week? There are Rangers fans in every town in the country, far more than Ibrox holds. Wouldn't Ibrox be attractive for broadcasters? If we want to maximise revenue, why not just sell the rights to 36 games next year and let the successful broadcaster choose. Maybe SFL1 will turn out to be a ripsnorter and end up in a 'Helicopter Sunday' style ending? Wouldn't the broadcaster like the chance to cover that game rather than yet another Rangers away trip, when SFL3 is already assured?

I disagree that Rangers have been punished severely. I rather think Sevco should be grateful to the SFL for allowing them entry ahead of other worthy contenders who have been trying to get into our league for years. Given the scale of Oldco wrongdoing, the Sevco reincarnation can expect some close scrutiny. For what it's worth though, I'm not alleging this is some big conspiracy to favour Rangers. Perhaps no-one's even thought about the implications of the deal, because it's been so rushed.

I don't think you understand fully how broadcasters operate

of course he doesnt know how it works but im sure you will tell us sevco get over it. u seem to be the world authority on everything. u claim to be a fifer but i struggle to see one east fife related post. you are clearly a blue nose. nothing wrong with that but dinae dress it up in this i go to home games and will wear black and gold pish. lets call a spade a spade you are a bitter man who cant accept that no one gives a fuck about yous going into the 3rd except rangers fans. why cant you accept this and move on. and before you say i am anti old firm i am not i am an east fife fan nothing more nothing less. and i am a firm believer in letting you post because it just shows you for the biggoted prick you are now kindly crawl back under the rock which you came from. Us east fife fans are bored with your rangers pish.

Rangers HAVEN'T been severely punished by Scottish football. They have had a 10 point deduction and (I think) a fine that's still to be imposed but that is it!

All that's happened so far is in relation to going into liquidation. A fate that other liquidated clubs have suffered.

A transfer embargo (if it happens) would be getting off lightly and no mistake.

Thanks for your kind remarks, but I am not 'get over it'. I don't know who he or she is, and I have never supported Rangers in my life. I am 'get over it II', an East Fife supporter who is not part of the lynch mob.

That's a fair point. I don't. I'm only commenting on a newspaper story that may affect East Fife and my concerns about the incompatibility of the broadcasters profit motive and the league's need to remain a fair contest.

Even the ten point deduction wasn't actually a punishment. That's just the rules. It's 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and minus 10 for administration.