One vision?; Is Setanta's (pounds) 35m deal the best that Scottish

0 Comments | Sunday Herald, The, Mar 21, 2004 | by Michael Grant

THE SPL did not hide their enthusiasm and even relief when they trumpeted the acceptance of a new television contract with Setanta Sport last month, but the fanfare was not unanimous. Amid the excited chatter over the completion of negotiations to secure (pounds) 35 million for showing 38 live matches in each of the next four seasons, there were three dissenting voices.

Rangers, Celtic and Dundee United were the three clubs which did not vote to get into bed with the Irish pay-per-view channel. The Old Firm both voted against accepting Setanta's offer and United made their point by abstaining.

Superficially it seemed that an unlikely alliance had been formed between the three clubs, but in fact each had their own specific concerns and anxieties and they acted independently. In the 30 days since the deal was accepted in principle by nine of their fellow clubs, nothing has emerged to allay their fears.

The 12 clubs are due to be told at a Hampden meeting on March 30 that the due diligence process on Setanta - in which auditors examine the company to satisfy the SPL they can afford to honour the (pounds) 35m deal - has been completed.

On the assumption that no skeletons have been discovered in Setanta's closet, the deal is done and - even if they wished to - Rangers, Celtic and United are powerless to stop the contract being officially confirmed. In fact all three will co-operate fully to ensure the relationship with Setanta is successful, but they will do so having made it clear that they have grave reservations.

It dismays the Old Firm that being anchored in Scotland, with its meagre television market, means they receive only around (pounds) 1m a year from broadcasting while a much smaller club, such as Portsmouth, get (pounds) 22m-a-year for the geographical good fortune of being eligible for the Premiership. If there is resigned acceptance that they are powerless to improve the bottom line from Setanta, though, Celtic and especially Rangers are aggrieved at other aspects of the deal that some have embraced as Scottish football's lifeline.

Rangers owner David Murray doubts Setanta's ability to accumulate the 120,000-or-so pay-per-view subscribers they will need to make a profit out of showing Scottish football.

Around 90,000 will have to pay to watch games just for Setanta's venture to break even. That the majority of those who do sign up inevitably will be Rangers or Celtic fans has led Murray to the conclusion that Setanta's arrival on the scene effectively will be a new tax on Old Firm supporters. "Rangers and Celtic supporters are basically sponsoring this deal," he said. "Say they get 100,000 subscribers: it will be Old Firm fans. This is a levy on Old Firm fans. Everyone thinks there's this great latent demand but I'll tell you what, we're all going to be highly embarrassed if it doesn't reach those figures.

"In my opinion the reason the other chairmen have voted for it is that it's a levy on Rangers and Celtic supporters."

Murray believes clubs' advertising revenue will decrease under Setanta because companies will pay less for stadium advertising boards at a game shown on a pay-per-view channel than they would if the fixture was being broadcast by the BBC. He also contests the widely-held belief that attendances will increase because more supporters will go to games if they cannot watch them on free-to-air television.

"I think the clubs who voted for it think that fans are going to come back to the stadiums, that games live on BBC affect their gates. They think that the indifferent fan, the floating fan, may come back to games because they know they won't get them on television any more. But how logical is that?

"I think we will just lose supporters because unless you go to games you won't watch them. People will lose interest. That's the danger."

Three years ago Setanta's offer would have been rejected. Back then an 11-1 majority was required in SPL votes and the Old Firm, whose size and common interests means they habitually vote the same way, had the power of veto. A change to the voting structure as a consequence of the row over SPL TV in 2002 meant only an 8-4 majority was required. The Old Firm agreed to that change to the voting structure but now it has left them committed to a deal they oppose.

"It's typical, if you do anything by committee," said Murray. "The clubs are doing what they think is in the best interest, but I don't think this is truly and logically gone through the complete thought process. I've never known a deal to be announced until all the legals have been completed, and they aren't completed here. It was rushed."

Celtic's opposition is not as wide-ranging as Rangers' but it is just as heartfelt. Celtic's media advisors have told the club that Scottish football's market value is at a low and to commit to a four- year deal means they are undervaluing the product, given that broadcasters may be prepared to pay far more for the rights to show SPL games in two or three years' time. "We voted against the deal because we favoured a shorter duration of contract," Celtic chief executive Peter Lawwell told the Sunday Herald. "It's our belief that media deals for football are close to the bottom of the curve and we would have liked to renegotiate sooner than four years from now.