Wings Over Scotland

We’ve noted before that it’s flattering to see the grown-up media pinching this blog’s stories. Sometimes it’s possible to put it down to innocent coincidence, such as the Guardian’s report today on the sweatshop conditions of workers producing London Olympic mascots – something Wings Over Scotland readers were reading about almost a month ago. At other times, though, the plagiarism is rather more obvious.

We picked up a lot of traffic on Sunday with an observation about the SFL rules with regard to associate membership, which appeared to have interesting potential ramifications for the Charles Green’s newco Rangers. Being proper journalists, we followed the story up on Monday, and noted in the comments yesterday evening that the SFL had in fact clarified that the “assets of the League” mentioned in the rule referred only to a situation where the League was being dissolved. (But see below.)

Sadly, such basic fact-checking appears to be beyond Scotland’s professional media. The Scotsman swiped the story, reporting this morning that:

“There has been conjecture over how Rangers’ initial status as associate members of the SFL would affect their share of any TV deal. The SFL’s Rule 19 states that an associate member “shall have no financial interest in the assets of the League”.

However, Rule 68.1 clarifies that monetary awards from commercial agreements will be made to “each member and associate member in the three League Championship competitions”.”

In fact, Rule 68.1 doesn’t actually mention “commercial agreements” – the full text is “The League shall make monetary awards to each Member and Associate Member in the three League Championship competitions” (our emphasis). Subsequent clauses in section 68, however, go on to clarify the distribution. A fixed sum from the League’s profits (the “Capped Limit”, currently around £1.2m) is divided between “Members and Associate Members” – 75% of it shared equally between the League’s 30 clubs, with the other 25% paid out according to league positions.

Interestingly, however, the remainder of the League’s trading surplus beyond that £1.2m – the “Excess” – is specifically described (in Rules 68.4.3.1 to 68.4.3.3) as being paid out to “Members”, with no mention of Associate Members.

Given that the SFL currently has no TV deal, it seems clear under Rule 68 that the Capped Limit currently takes no account of money from media rights. Therefore, any new revenues the League manages to secure from broadcasting Sevco FC games would naturally be extremely likely to fall into the Excess rather than the Capped Limit, meaning that Sevco FC would have no right to a share.

The Daily Record, meanwhile, is evidently also following this blog, though on this occasion it reaches a slightly different conclusion. In a story today, it reports that:

“Newco Rangers have been granted only associate membership of the SFL. As a result, under Rule 19 of the SFL’s constitution, they aren’t entitled to a share of the sale of those rights – even though it’s their involvement which has produced a bidding war. The rule states: “An Associate Member shall have no financial interest in the assets of the League and shall not be accorded any voting rights.”

“However, SFL chief executive David Longmuir hinted last night a compromise may be reached which will allow the club to gain a much-needed cash injection from the transaction. He said: “We will work in a collaborative fashion to operate in the best interests of the League.””

It’s not made clear in the piece whether the Record has actually obtained this quote by specifically asking David Longmuir about the implications of Rule 19. (It seems likely that it didn’t – normal practice in a newspaper would be to say “David Longmuir told the Record last night that…”, and in the absence of similar phrases it’s usually safe to assume that the quote has simply been lifted from a press release or interview with another news source.)

But in any event, as our follow-up enquiries of Monday morning have shown, Rule 19 is a red herring. Rule 68 is where the action is in terms of the SFL’s distribution of monies, and it appears to plainly suggest that Sevco Scotland Limited will, as the rules stand, NOT benefit from any TV money its presence brings to the League.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the SFL will agree a discretionary payment, or a special extension of the Capped Limit, to take account of the increase in revenue brought about by the Ibrox club’s presence, although we can in fact find no mechanism in the rules for doing so – Rule 68 only provides for an alteration to the Capped Limit to take account of inflation, and for no other reasons.

But to find out more about that, the Scottish media would have to actually undertake some journalism, rather than just nicking stories off blogs. So don’t hold your breath.