Sportscene Watch 2016/17

[Miguel Sanchez]

4 hours ago, Swello said:

I've been really critical of it over the past couple of seasons in particular - but I agree, it's settled down and improved. By not changing the format every week and trying to many gimmicks, they have made it better. 

However - omitting the Championship entirely feels like a ridiculous move, especially as has often been the case, it's more likely to provide an interesting title race. Whatever the "real" reason for dropping it is in BBC-speak, it looks like a simple case of losing all interest now Rangers are in the Premier - which is a disgrace IMO. There must surely be space somewhere for a lower leagues programme, even if it is on Alba or iPlayer-only or whatever....

Especially patronising was Sutherland's effective "and finally" job mentioning Bell's penalty saves as the camera panned out to end the programme. It's not even the fact that they covered Championship games for the remarkably coincidental period where Rangers were present only, I get why that was. I get that there is a limit to the budget for what they can cover and what they can show and that overall the interest in lower leagues will be, well, lower, but you would hope a public broadcaster would make some serious attempt to cover all the senior football in the country.

[Redstarstranraer]

5 hours ago, mike_gain said:

I have no idea. They don't have rights to cover Championship games live and the BBC (if you exclude BBC Alba) only have access to top flight highlights.

Let's be honest BT could just ignore the rules and Doncaster would be none the wiser. But it's important to acknowledge that these deals are approved by the member clubs so perhaps we should be able to ask our respective chairmen if the current status really is the best for everyone. 

Not really buying the BBC's line on all this.  When they got complaints about ditching the Championship highlights, coincidentally when Rangers made it to the premiership, they offered up a range of excuses in their initial response.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complaint/sportscenescotchampionship

• Firstly that Sportscene focused historically on the top tier only.  Then why expand it to 'certain' lower league games over the past 4 seasons?
• Secondly that the premiership-only format thus mirrored Match of the Day: see above and also a total irrelevance anyway, there's no need to ape MOTD for any reason.

Both of those reasons were irrelevant bunkum, the TV rights deal angle was the only one worth arguing (if they're going to pretend as they have been doing that it had nothing to do with covering any one club in particular), so the only one worth looking at critically.

It's true they have argued that it was BT and Sky who asked the SPFL for the rights to lower league games in 2012 and apparently therefore these rights suddenly became available (apparently nobody had bothered to ask for them before).  If the BBC as their response states were 'able to access' such highlights packages as a consequence it's reasonable to assume there was a cost involved.  I can't see Sky or BT getting them for free or passing them over to the BBC for free, although their response infers that the subscription broadcasters might have been that generous.  Who knows, maybe there really was a clause in their deal with the SPFL that meant that if BT or Sky got extended live rights the BBC automatically got the highlights of these games at no extra cost.  Maybe.

In any case all a bit irrelevant as that deal is apparently history.  In their statement the BBC alleged that their rights package has "reverted" to one that just allows them to show highlights of the premier league but not anything below that.  Bit weird then that in May they were trumpeting the fact they'd signed a 'new' deal with the SPFL:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36213734

So it really isn't the case that the deal simply went back to what it was before; had they had the appetite to do so presumably in May, knowing that their rights to championship highlights, however they had secured them, were about to elapse they could have included them in the new arrangement.  They didn't.  Either the SPFL asked for some ridiculous sum or they decided to just stop paying for them.  Given the SPFL hadn't been apparently been able to sell these rights before, and in a footballing context were supposedly in a 'weaker' position I'm going for the latter being more likely.

In any case it's truly ludicrous BBC Alba have the live rights to these games, or some of them at least, but BBC Scotland can't apparently get the rights to the highlights of these games.  Especially when Alba can show highlights of the premiership.

Basically their response is self-serving and incomplete.  I've been going through the complaints process on this to try and get some more clarity as to what rights they actually have regarding the Alba deal and whether or not any attempt was made to get lower league highlights included in their new deal (and if not why not).  So far all they're prepared to do is regurgitate their original statement and they have 'nothing further to add at this stage'.  So it'll be escalated to the next stage then...

[lionel hutz]

Unfortunately my highlights package will not be up until tomorrow as I have no footage of Saints vs Queens and Hibs vs Dumbarton is poor at best

[Salvo Montalbano]

Was going to say something similar to @Redstarstranraer who put it better than I would have. The SPFL extracted more money from the BBC yet the BBC didn't say "for that all that extra money why don't you allow us to retain access to lower league games for goals and/or highlights?" or at least enquire during the negotiations about the rights? They never even considered it due to the lack of the Tribute Act and to come up with their responses to the questions they clearly never expected is just embarrassing. 

[mike_gain]

1 hour ago, Salvo Montalbano said:

Was going to say something similar to @Redstarstranraer who put it better than I would have. The SPFL extracted more money from the BBC yet the BBC didn't say "for that all that extra money why don't you allow us to retain access to lower league games for goals and/or highlights?" or at least enquire during the negotiations about the rights? They never even considered it due to the lack of the Tribute Act and to come up with their responses to the questions they clearly never expected is just embarrassing. 

The BBC's extra money was handed over after coming to an agreement that matches would be covered with more cameras than present. Yes they could have stumped up more money and asked the SPFL to send cameras to the lower leagues or could have used the extra money they intended to spend on extra cameras and instead use it to send a camera to the odd Championship game but I guess they took on the feedback from fans that the coverage highlights coverage of the top flight has been dire the last few years so took steps to improve it.

The long and the short of it is that while cameras were being sent to the lower leagues (and I think we all know why that was happening) the BBC had access to footage.....now there is no footage how are they supposed to show the highlights?

The BBC can be held to account for many things (last week's Glasgow Derby obsession being one of them) but they simply don't have the capacity or funding to take on producing lower league footage of their own. That said why they are still producing the "we're mirroring MOTD" line is beyond me.

For anyone still concerned about this issue I'd advise, as well as complaining to the BBC, contacting your own club as they may have approved the deal and can maybe give some assurances or at the very least answer some questions.

[Rugster]

28 minutes ago, mike_gain said:

 

The long and the short of it is that while cameras were being sent to the lower leagues (and I think we all know why that was happening) the BBC had access to footage.....now there is no footage how are they supposed to show the highlights?

 

As has been previously stated, Sky have sent cameras (or a camera) to a number of games already this season in the championship, mainly (maybe exclusively, I can't remember) matches involving Dundee United and Hibs. Highlights have been shown on both Sky Sports SPFL round up and BT Sports SPFL shows.

 

[Salvo Montalbano]

@Rugster beat me too it - there are cameras at the games, the club's themselves produce highlights and Sky Sports News and BT Sport regularly show the goals from Championship matches (usually but not exclusively games involving Hibs and Dundee United). The idea that the BBC would have to devote some huge resource to cobble together a few minutes of highlights from games that are already being filmed and shown elsewhere is laughable. How much does it cost them to put together clips of Scotland games shown on Sky or Premier Sports for the news or whatever?  

I'm also not advocating spending more money than they were already paying the SPFL but merely saying that it would have been very easy, had the BBC wished, to say that retaining the rights to show the games (irrespective of who filmed the games) should have been part of the agreement to increase their fee for TV rights. Only the BBC would think that paying more money while reducing their portfolio is a good idea. Had The Tribute Act remained in the Championship, do you think they would have asked to keep the rights?  

[Swello]

1 hour ago, mike_gain said:

 

The BBC can be held to account for many things (last week's Glasgow Derby obsession being one of them) but they simply don't have the capacity or funding to take on producing lower league footage of their own. That said why they are still producing the "we're mirroring MOTD" line is beyond me.

I think this is a pretty damning situation if that is the only reason that lower league games aren't shown - that our "national broadcaster" can't resource or afford to put a single camera at 5 first division grounds each week and edit 3 or 4 mins of highlights for broadcast is pretty embarrassing for an entity the size of the BBC.

[mike_gain]

1 hour ago, Rugster said:

As has been previously stated, Sky have sent cameras (or a camera) to a number of games already this season in the championship, mainly (maybe exclusively, I can't remember) matches involving Dundee United and Hibs. Highlights have been shown on both Sky Sports SPFL round up and BT Sports SPFL shows.

 

So you think the BBC have access to this footage but aren't showing it....or is it that they don't have access to it as it's not included in their contract?

Sky won't have sent any cameras to any games in the championship. It'll be the SPFL that has sent them Sky and BT are now purchasing this footage the BBC aren't. 

Previously the BBC benefited from BT and Sky negotiating with the league to include the lower leagues in their live coverage to extract money from you know who and I think everyone would agree the highlights were rubbish as a result. That changed when Sky and BT singed a new contract in Sept 2015 which only covered top flight. The BBC then set about agreeing their contract for the next few years. it's a safe bet they prioritised ensuring more cameras at top flight games over showing highlights from the championship.

This hasn't really been an issue in the past why is it such a big issue now? Is it because it highlights that Sky and BT chased after who they believed would give them the greatest return with the result that in effect they were favoured over other teams in the league. I'll agree that is a sad state of affairs but hardly surprising in the current climate of football.

If you really believe the BBC is deliberately not showing lower league highlights, despite the fact they can afford to and the only reason they did it the last few seasons was because Rangers were playing at a lower level, even though it cost them more money,  then raise it with your club and get them to put pressure on Doncaster to explain why. 

[Rugster]

1 minute ago, mike_gain said:

So you think the BBC have access to this footage but aren't showing it....or is it that they don't have access to it as it's not included in their contract?

Sky won't have sent any cameras to any games in the championship. It'll be the SPFL that has sent them Sky and BT are now purchasing this footage the BBC aren't. 

Previously the BBC benefited from BT and Sky negotiating with the league to include the lower leagues in their live coverage to extract money from you know who and I think everyone would agree the highlights were rubbish as a result. That changed when Sky and BT singed a new contract in Sept 2015 which only covered top flight. The BBC then set about agreeing their contract for the next few years. it's a safe bet they prioritised ensuring more cameras at top flight games over showing highlights from the championship.

This hasn't really been an issue in the past why is it such a big issue now? Is it because it highlights that Sky and BT chased after who they believed would give them the greatest return with the result that in effect they were favoured over other teams in the league. I'll agree that is a sad state of affairs but hardly surprising in the current climate of football.

If you really believe the BBC is deliberately not showing lower league highlights, despite the fact they can afford to and the only reason they did it the last few seasons was because Rangers were playing at a lower level, even though it cost them more money,  then raise it with your club and get them to put pressure on Doncaster to explain why. 

That's not what you said. You said "The long and the short of it is that while cameras were being sent to the lower leagues (and I think we all know why that was happening) the BBC had access to footage.....now there is no footage how are they supposed to show the highlights? "

I was merely pointing out that there are cameras being sent to games, and there is footage available.

[mike_gain]

15 minutes ago, Rugster said:

That's not what you said. You said "The long and the short of it is that while cameras were being sent to the lower leagues (and I think we all know why that was happening) the BBC had access to footage.....now there is no footage how are they supposed to show the highlights? "

I was merely pointing out that there are cameras being sent to games, and there is footage available.

My phrasing could be improved. While cameras were being sent to the lower leagues under the terms of their (and Sky and BT's) contract they had access.

But you're making the implication that the BBC went the extra mile to ensure they could have Rangers highlights. I'm just saying that they were shown simply because they didn't have to go the extra mile and there was an interest in these highlights.

[Rugster]

14 minutes ago, mike_gain said:

My phrasing could be improved. While cameras were being sent to the lower leagues under the terms of their (and Sky and BT's) contract they had access.

But you're making the implication that the BBC went the extra mile to ensure they could have Rangers highlights. I'm just saying that they were shown simply because they didn't have to go the extra mile and there was an interest in these highlights.

No, I'm not making that implication at all.

[mike_gain]

12 minutes ago, Rugster said:

No, I'm not making that implication at all.

Fair point.

[Redstarstranraer]

53 minutes ago, mike_gain said:

So you think the BBC have access to this footage but aren't showing it....or is it that they don't have access to it as it's not included in their contract?

Sky won't have sent any cameras to any games in the championship. It'll be the SPFL that has sent them Sky and BT are now purchasing this footage the BBC aren't. 

Previously the BBC benefited from BT and Sky negotiating with the league to include the lower leagues in their live coverage to extract money from you know who and I think everyone would agree the highlights were rubbish as a result. That changed when Sky and BT singed a new contract in Sept 2015 which only covered top flight. The BBC then set about agreeing their contract for the next few years. it's a safe bet they prioritised ensuring more cameras at top flight games over showing highlights from the championship.

This hasn't really been an issue in the past why is it such a big issue now? Is it because it highlights that Sky and BT chased after who they believed would give them the greatest return with the result that in effect they were favoured over other teams in the league. I'll agree that is a sad state of affairs but hardly surprising in the current climate of football.

If you really believe the BBC is deliberately not showing lower league highlights, despite the fact they can afford to and the only reason they did it the last few seasons was because Rangers were playing at a lower level, even though it cost them more money,  then raise it with your club and get them to put pressure on Doncaster to explain why. 

Well that's the question really isn't it?  I think everyone can agree now that this isn't anything to do with the BBC not having the 'resources' to send cameras to cover an additional 5 games.  Indeed when they were showing lower league highlights it was generally only of one or two games per week anyway.  These matches are being filmed, as has been stated above highlight packages are being made and other broadcasters are choosing to purchase them.  The BBC isn't showing them and hence the question has to be is it because they can't or because they won't?  A new contract was negotiated this year so either it didn't include these rights or it actually did and the BBC have made an editorial decision not to include them on Sportscene.  If the contract didn't include such rights it was because the BBC didn't want them or the SPFL asked for an extortionate (in the BBC's eyes) sum.  So which was it?  These are valid questions the BBC should answer.

Do you work for the BBC or something?  Or did having two minutes of highlights of a championship game really ruin Sportscene that much for you?  I don't recall there being large numbers of complaints on here that the lower leagues got some coverage so I think your statement that 'everyone would agree the highlights were rubbish as a result' a bit bizarre to be honest.  I don't think the poor quality of the highlights of premiership games previously had anything to do with showing one or two lower league games either; it was down to editorial decisions made by the BBC at the time.  The 'why is this an issue now?' angle is also bemusing.  Well evidently because the BBC expanded their coverage and then subsequently decided to reduce it once again without adequate justification in the eyes of a lot of their audience, hence the complaints.

The last bit in italics I find really bizarre.  The BBC as the broadcaster involved are the only party who could explain why they've decided not to show these highlights; and they clearly 'deliberately' decided not to, I can't see how Sky or the SPFL are 'forcing' them to not show them.  It's also up to the BBC to explain why they showed any at all to begin with and provide a convincing explanation that it wasn't anything to do with Rangers.  The idea that because Sky and BT wanted the coverage the BBC had no choice but to copy them is ludicrous.  It is the BBC and the BBC alone who can answer the questions I've asked above as to the contract and their approach to the negotiations.  At best the SPFL would be able to tell you if they were asked for the rights and perhaps (although I suspect they wouldn't reveal it) how much they asked the BBC to pay if the BBC asked for them at all.  Why would my club or the SPFL, or even Doncaster, know why the answers to these questions?  

Basically this is the BBC's decision and for them to explain.  Nobody forced them to this decision and nobody can explain their actions away for them.  The highlights are out there: other broadcasters are paying for them on occasion.  The BBC don't and waffle about contracts 'reverting' or a 'lack of capacity' isn't a satisfactory response.  

 

[Rugster]

37 minutes ago, Redstarstranraer said:

Well that's the question really isn't it?  I think everyone can agree now that this isn't anything to do with the BBC not having the 'resources' to send cameras to cover an additional 5 games.  Indeed when they were showing lower league highlights it was generally only of one or two games per week anyway.  These matches are being filmed, as has been stated above highlight packages are being made and other broadcasters are choosing to purchase them.  The BBC isn't showing them and hence the question has to be is it because they can't or because they won't?  A new contract was negotiated this year so either it didn't include these rights or it actually did and the BBC have made an editorial decision not to include them on Sportscene.  If the contract didn't include such rights it was because the BBC didn't want them or the SPFL asked for an extortionate (in the BBC's eyes) sum.  So which was it?  These are valid questions the BBC should answer.

Do you work for the BBC or something?  Or did having two minutes of highlights of a championship game really ruin Sportscene that much for you?  I don't recall there being large numbers of complaints on here that the lower leagues got some coverage so I think your statement that 'everyone would agree the highlights were rubbish as a result' a bit bizarre to be honest.  I don't think the poor quality of the highlights of premiership games previously had anything to do with showing one or two lower league games either; it was down to editorial decisions made by the BBC at the time.  The 'why is this an issue now?' angle is also bemusing.  Well evidently because the BBC expanded their coverage and then subsequently decided to reduce it once again without adequate justification in the eyes of a lot of their audience, hence the complaints.

The last bit in italics I find really bizarre.  The BBC as the broadcaster involved are the only party who could explain why they've decided not to show these highlights; and they clearly 'deliberately' decided not to, I can't see how Sky or the SPFL are 'forcing' them to not show them.  It's also up to the BBC to explain why they showed any at all to begin with and provide a convincing explanation that it wasn't anything to do with Rangers.  The idea that because Sky and BT wanted the coverage the BBC had no choice but to copy them is ludicrous.  It is the BBC and the BBC alone who can answer the questions I've asked above as to the contract and their approach to the negotiations.  At best the SPFL would be able to tell you if they were asked for the rights and perhaps (although I suspect they wouldn't reveal it) how much they asked the BBC to pay if the BBC asked for them at all.  Why would my club or the SPFL, or even Doncaster, know why the answers to these questions?  

Basically this is the BBC's decision and for them to explain.  Nobody forced them to this decision and nobody can explain their actions away for them.  The highlights are out there: other broadcasters are paying for them on occasion.  The BBC don't and waffle about contracts 'reverting' or a 'lack of capacity' isn't a satisfactory response.  

 

Excellent post.

[mike_gain]

21 minutes ago, Redstarstranraer said:

Well that's the question really isn't it?  I think everyone can agree now that this isn't anything to do with the BBC not having the 'resources' to send cameras to cover an additional 5 games.  Indeed when they were showing lower league highlights it was generally only of one or two games per week anyway.  These matches are being filmed, as has been stated above highlight packages are being made and other broadcasters are choosing to purchase them.  The BBC isn't showing them and hence the question has to be is it because they can't or because they won't?  A new contract was negotiated this year so either it didn't include these rights or it actually did and the BBC have made an editorial decision not to include them on Sportscene.  If the contract didn't include such rights it was because the BBC didn't want them or the SPFL asked for an extortionate (in the BBC's eyes) sum.  So which was it?  These are valid questions the BBC should answer.

Do you work for the BBC or something?  Or did having two minutes of highlights of a championship game really ruin Sportscene that much for you?  I don't recall there being large numbers of complaints on here that the lower leagues got some coverage so I think your statement that 'everyone would agree the highlights were rubbish as a result' a bit bizarre to be honest.  I don't think the poor quality of the highlights of premiership games previously had anything to do with showing one or two lower league games either; it was down to editorial decisions made by the BBC at the time.  The 'why is this an issue now?' angle is also bemusing.  Well evidently because the BBC expanded their coverage and then subsequently decided to reduce it once again without adequate justification in the eyes of a lot of their audience, hence the complaints.

The last bit in italics I find really bizarre.  The BBC as the broadcaster involved are the only party who could explain why they've decided not to show these highlights; and they clearly 'deliberately' decided not to, I can't see how Sky or the SPFL are 'forcing' them to not show them.  It's also up to the BBC to explain why they showed any at all to begin with and provide a convincing explanation that it wasn't anything to do with Rangers.  The idea that because Sky and BT wanted the coverage the BBC had no choice but to copy them is ludicrous.  It is the BBC and the BBC alone who can answer the questions I've asked above as to the contract and their approach to the negotiations.  At best the SPFL would be able to tell you if they were asked for the rights and perhaps (although I suspect they wouldn't reveal it) how much they asked the BBC to pay if the BBC asked for them at all.  Why would my club or the SPFL, or even Doncaster, know why the answers to these questions?  

Basically this is the BBC's decision and for them to explain.  Nobody forced them to this decision and nobody can explain their actions away for them.  The highlights are out there: other broadcasters are paying for them on occasion.  The BBC don't and waffle about contracts 'reverting' or a 'lack of capacity' isn't a satisfactory response.  

 

I don't work for the BBC and I would be more than happy to have lower league highlights. Where I think people will agree is that there was a lack of camera angles, shortened highlights to make room for the Championship highlights etc... Those were real issues that people discussed week in week out. Saints had 30 seconds of highlights one week, total shambles. The BBC have, in the recent contract, addressed the camera angles issue buy making sure more cameras are at top flight games it could be argued longer highlights are as a result of less games but it's also because Celtic aren't getting 30 minutes dedicated to them while Bonner tries to remember the names of at least one of the players playing against Celtic.

In my mind there is no mystery as to why the BBC are only showing top flight highlights....they don't have access to the footage anymore and they can't for whatever reason afford to licence the footage from those who are filming. They would presumably have to spend even more to get what they had before for less. So yes it was their decision but many of the compounding factors are out of their control e.g. who now owns the footage and who they have a licencing agreement with these are the factors that have changed and would have been known around September last year....before Rangers were assured of promotion.

The reason i suggest getting the clubs involved are that if you were to publish footage of the say Hibs vs Dumbarton who do you think would come chapping at your door asking questions? It won't be Sky or BT. You think there are no managers or chairmen in Scottish football that would be prepared to call out the BBC on grounds of favoritism towards Rangers to the determent of non top flight clubs? When upon seeing the terms of the deal signed in May and saw what many believe to be the BBC reducing their funding and interest in the lower leagues as they didn't need to spend money on them anymore that no chairmen thought to make a point of this?

The situation is still far from perfect. We should have highlights available on a Saturday and there is an argument that as the 1st Div has been extremely competitive for at least the last 10 years that it warrents some coverage. But the budget isn't there and the BBC chose to address what they could. Money controls the game and they've spent it where they thought it best. Christ the BBC cannie even keep a hold of their own baking show.

[The Master]

Sky and BT don't have the rights to Championship games, you say?

Sunday 2 October 2016

Ladbrokes Championship

Hibernian v Dundee United

Kick-off 12 noon

Live on Sky Sports

http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-confirm-latest-live-tv-matches/#koMF4gqyEyKLwYHO.99

[mike_gain]

3 minutes ago, The Master said:

Sky and BT don't have the rights to Championship games, you say?

Sunday 2 October 2016

Ladbrokes Championship

Hibernian v Dundee United

Kick-off 12 noon

Live on Sky Sports

http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-confirm-latest-live-tv-matches/#koMF4gqyEyKLwYHO.99

Not under the terms of the contract they singed in September. Is that your argument though? Sky are showing live games so why aren't the BBC?

[itzdrk]

The long and the short of it is that while cameras were being sent to the lower leagues (and I think we all know why that was happening) the BBC had access to footage.....now there is no footage how are they supposed to show the highlights?

I watch highlights of every championship game & where available league one and two every week. They could easily ask the clubs if they can use this footage and pay a nominal fee and would get it.

[The Master]

11 minutes ago, mike_gain said:

Not under the terms of the contract they singed in September.

Funny that they're showing a live game next month, then.

Is that your argument though? Sky are showing live games so why aren't the BBC?

No, I'm just pointing out that Sky are showing a live Championship game when you were claiming neither they nor BT had the rights to do so.