Ross. Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 48 minutes ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: It's all well and good sitting here slagging off tabloid journalism, but how does our TV deal actually compare to the rest of Europe? Is the gist of their article completely wrong? The Daily Record might be the source of a lot of what is wrong in our game but if they can see, like most people here can, that our game is sold short commercially by the likes of Neil Doncaster, then surely that is a positive development. To an extent, I agree, but the fact the Record are going after this makes me suspicious because it is almost a real story and they don't really touch on issues like that. No surprises today that they are pretty much calling on a boycott of Sky, who of course are closely linked to The Sun. That's definitely one part of the agenda. The interview today with Richard Keys also seems to jump a few years and twist direction completely as it tumbles from the Sky deal being knocked back a decade ago to Keys saying he still doesn't know what Rangers done wrong to end up starting life in the bottom league, which appears to be another agenda altogether. Whatever their reasons for picking up on this now, it's not because they care about Scottish football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Illgresi Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 24 minutes ago, sjc said: Or we could hope that the New "old" Firm arms race results in a double KO. If we've learned anything from history, it's that an 'arms race' always results in shit going back to the way it was before. At least for the interested parties. Napoleonic war, WWI, WW2, Cold war. f**k all changes. The little guy still gets shat on. Besides, there's no parity here. Celtic are, and will be for a very long time, the absolute best in Scottish football. Sevco don't have a hope of catching them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussellAnderson Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 One of the key drivers for these countries is likely that the large fees are being paid by national broadcasters who view the domestic league as a priority. Alba aside, there isn't one broadcaster for whom Scottish Football is the number 1 priority. We don't have a national tv broadcaster, a national sports broadcaster. So long as this is the case, we're always going to get bargain basement deals because compared to the other interests in the UK, we're 2nd, possibly 3rd behind the Championship. Our unique situation should mean we need to follow novel and creative ideas to their fulfilment as conventional national models won't work on what is effectively a regional league. I'm massively in favour of an online SPFL service where you can choose to watch one of many games. Or perhaps an open-all-mics TV show where they show all the goals. Of course this is always going to be difficult with self interested chairmen (and I include Stewarty Milne in that) and inept leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Ross. said: To an extent, I agree, but the fact the Record are going after this makes me suspicious because it is almost a real story and they don't really touch on issues like that. No surprises today that they are pretty much calling on a boycott of Sky, who of course are closely linked to The Sun. That's definitely one part of the agenda. The interview today with Richard Keys also seems to jump a few years and twist direction completely as it tumbles from the Sky deal being knocked back a decade ago to Keys saying he still doesn't know what Rangers done wrong to end up starting life in the bottom league, which appears to be another agenda altogether. Whatever their reasons for picking up on this now, it's not because they care about Scottish football. Richard Keys is an embarrassing dinosaur, and he's right, he doesn't know about what happened to Rangers. Why we should care what he thinks about Scottish football is beyond me. Although to be fair to him, he pins lots of blame of Roger Mitchell, which is always worthwhile. This is also a decent point: "I don’t buy into the theory they won’t pay proper money for it because it’s not a very good product because when we set up the Premier League in England it wasn’t a very good product either." What you are saying is quite possibly true, but having the mass selling tabloids who usually do nothing but damage to Scottish football kicking off about bad leadership and terrible commercial deals will bring these undoubted problems to a wider audience who are largely too stupid or impatient for P&B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The DA Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 The first signs of European club football telling the over-hyped Champions League to GTF. Excellent news. https://stv.tv/sport/football/1384509-spfl-tv-blackout-on-champions-league-nights-ended-by-epfl/?utm_content=buffer07fe1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 3 hours ago, Malcolm Malcolm said: It's all well and good sitting here slagging off tabloid journalism, but how does our TV deal actually compare to the rest of Europe? Is the gist of their article completely wrong? The Daily Record might be the source of a lot of what is wrong in our game but if they can see, like most people here can, that our game is sold short commercially by the likes of Neil Doncaster, then surely that is a positive development. The only way to work out if it's a fair deal or not would be to work out a couple of things - amount of money paid per game (which would lower the relative attractiveness of the Scandinavian TV deal) and amount of money per game per viewer. I'm sure a back of a fag packet argument had the English TV deal being about £11m per game and with average viewing figures of around a million on average while our proposed new deal was about £500,000, with viewing figures in the hundred thousands. Put like that it seems a bit unfair but the England is a special (nut) case. If someone could work something similar out for some other "markets" that would be ace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7-2 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 hour ago, The DA said: The first signs of European club football telling the over-hyped Champions League to GTF. Excellent news. https://stv.tv/sport/football/1384509-spfl-tv-blackout-on-champions-league-nights-ended-by-epfl/?utm_content=buffer07fe1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Excellent news indeed. It's one of my main bugbears of the CL, the removal of freedom of choice. Shall hold off celebrating fully until it's conformed as a permanent arrangement though. Money still talks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snakebite Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 canny believe yees don't want tae watch eh champions league lit eh rest ae the armchair sheep mahn, jist luv watchin aw the big teems pump diddies in wan sidet gemmes and being a pure lad in the pub tryen tay fit in way the bhoys ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Malcolm Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I enjoy watching the CL but it needs to be more diverse. I miss the Europa League mattering more as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 The only way to work out if it's a fair deal or not would be to work out a couple of things - amount of money paid per game (which would lower the relative attractiveness of the Scandinavian TV deal) and amount of money per game per viewer. I'm sure a back of a fag packet argument had the English TV deal being about £11m per game and with average viewing figures of around a million on average while our proposed new deal was about £500,000, with viewing figures in the hundred thousands. Put like that it seems a bit unfair but the England is a special (nut) case. If someone could work something similar out for some other "markets" that would be ace. I can see where you are going but why does it matter how many games are televised. They will be played anyway, so the difference is in the marginal difference in gate receipts not in actual games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salvo Montalbano Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 It matters when comparing the relative value of the deal surely? If BT were going to pay £30 million for just 4 live games a season the negotiators would have been seen to have done a good job, whereas £40 million to show every single game live would seem to be a steal - and while you might not think the crowds being down would cost much (and I'm sure several clubs have said they do lose significant sums when crowds for TV matches are compared to non-televised ones, not only through ticket sales but hospitality etc, especially when games are moved at short notice or are played midweek rather than the weekend) there is also the general inconvenience to fans and the increased importance of TV viewers over fans who attend, which in Scotland is not a good strategy as most clubs get a higher percentage of income from supporers coming to games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted April 1, 2017 Share Posted April 1, 2017 I do agree but i think that there are so many variables that a simple better/worse comparison is pretty meaningless. If we had got double our current money for twice the number of games would it really be exactly as good a deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ftk Posted April 2, 2017 Share Posted April 2, 2017 The reason negotiations have started so early for the new tv deal are because major changes to the game are planned. Feedback from the SPFL to the clubs suggest :- a new league structure currently favouring 12 - 12 splitting into 8 - 8 - 8- a summer league playing from Febuary to November (June break if world cup or euros on)- BT showing up to 80 games a season paying around £500k a game ie deal for around 40 million a year.Interesting ideas that will split the fans down the middle as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel hutz Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Anyone have updates on the TV Deal? Not heard anything for a wee while but tbh I've not been paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreverarover Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 Anyone have updates on the TV Deal? Not heard anything for a wee while but tbh I've not been paying attention. The update is that every away Sevco and Celtic game will be as shown live. A token other match will be shown once a season to make it look like the tv company is interested in the rest of the spfl. Seemples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellbhoy Posted April 28, 2017 Share Posted April 28, 2017 5 hours ago, Marr1 said: Anyone have updates on the TV Deal? Not heard anything for a wee while but tbh I've not been paying attention. We know it's going to be a shit deal dressed up by the SPFL to look like it's the best we've ever had and will ever get. They should contact me to broker the deal. I'll make the c***s pay up or threaten to do everything possible to wake up Scottish punters to cancel their subscriptions and do some real damage to their profits. That's the only action that will make these p***ks cough up because it will actually in the real world put the overpaid EPL sponsorship in jeopardy. I'm actually fucking surprised that the SPFL haven't publicly stated done this at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welldaft Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 11 hours ago, hellbhoy said: We know it's going to be a shit deal dressed up by the SPFL to look like it's the best we've ever had and will ever get. They should contact me to broker the deal. I'll make the c***s pay up or threaten to do everything possible to wake up Scottish punters to cancel their subscriptions and do some real damage to their profits. That's the only action that will make these p***ks cough up because it will actually in the real world put the overpaid EPL sponsorship in jeopardy. I'm actually fucking surprised that the SPFL haven't publicly stated done this at all Absolutely this. They should get proper negotiators to manage the TV deals and not the inept ones involved. I get the English premier league is more valuable due to viewing figures and overeas rights etc. But the gap has been a piss take from the get go. A rough calculation would work out as many as 1 million Sky/BT sports subscribers north of the border. Paying an average £5-600 PA = £500m + who agreed to the cosy deal between BT and Sky needs shot. If BT got sole rights to SPFL football I would cancel Sky in a nanosecond. And probably vice versa. I am sure I would not be alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 Can't wait for another "record breaking" deal which is actually less money per game than the last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 We need to play then at their own game.First 6 months half price* then £2m per month. Then make the big games (playoffs, finals, killie v st j) pay per view.*when they rent a line out of the gantry (subject to installation fe of £1bn). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 29, 2017 Share Posted April 29, 2017 I'm hoping to get some support for my own idea. There won't actually be any games on the telly, there will be no money, but there also won't be any David Tanner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.