vikingTON Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 BBC Alba were paying an absolute pittance though, which meant that clubs were often losing money from smaller crowds, changes to booked hospitality etc. from live coverage. Until Alba or more realistically another channel submits a financially viable package then live coverage rights shouldn't be sold at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coprolite Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Get ALBA to f**k unless they stop commentating in Gaelic, Get Sky Sports to f**k and give BT exclusive rights for the entirety of Scottish football. You can still hear the names in Gaelic and I can live without "he's hit that too well" and "there was contact" etc.Agree on Sky though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropy Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 I like a nonny nonny half time score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 5 hours ago, virginton said: BBC Alba were paying an absolute pittance though, which meant that clubs were often losing money from smaller crowds, changes to booked hospitality etc. from live coverage. Until Alba or more realistically another channel submits a financially viable package then live coverage rights shouldn't be sold at all. This. Having a home game screened live on Alba is simply a costly pain in the arse for clubs. There's no real upside, such is the tiny amount of cash and the way it's distributed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendan Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 I think Alba should do more League 1 and 2 games live. To me that's the appropriate level for what they are paying, and it also gives teams who haven't been on TV much a bit of exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted June 29, 2017 Author Share Posted June 29, 2017 People say they would prefer to watch Morton v Dumbarton (or such like) over games involving Celtic and Sevco (and I agree with them) but the reality is that the viewing figures don't support the case for paying more than Alba currently do. If they did, then it probably wouldn't be Alba picking up the rights in the first place. I wonder if instead of live coverage, the lower leagues would be better served with a weekly highlights programme, still on Alba? Basically Scotsport First, but in Gaelic (and no David McKnney in sight). A featured game from the Championship, with the goals a major incidents from the other 14 games across the divisions. They could send their own camera(s) to Championship games, then use club footage for Leagues 1 and 2, like BT do for the English National League highlights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendan Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Yes, you're probably right that highlights of lower league would be better than live. Either way, I don't think live Championship is appropriate - and Alba shouldn't really be spending any more on football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 I wouldn't care if Alba spent nothing on our games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 5 hours ago, ropy said: I like a nonny nonny half time score The rugby coverage is better, for the simple fact they say "penas" far more regularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted June 29, 2017 Author Share Posted June 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Randy Giles said: I wouldn't care if Alba spent nothing on our games. But the money men at the clubs do. Fans of more than one team have said that the money from Alba doesn't compensate for the reduction in crowd and hospitality sales due to abnormal kick-off times. The idea behind TV rights fees is that it should act as some kind of compensation (whether paid directly or via prize money) for moving games about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Gaines Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Just now, The Master said: But the money men at the clubs do. Fans of more than one team have said that the money from Alba doesn't compensate for the reduction in crowd and hospitality sales due to abnormal kick-off times. That's kind of why I don't care if they put anything in. If their presence was worthwhile then fair enough. It isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted June 29, 2017 Author Share Posted June 29, 2017 3 minutes ago, Randy Giles said: That's kind of why I don't care if they put anything in. If their presence was worthwhile then fair enough. It isn't. Sorry, looks like I picked you up wrong. I thought you were suggesting that you'd be happy for Alba to show the games for nothing. I see what you mean now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsr Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 A few pages back people were asking why a new TV deal is being negotiated so soon when the current one isn't due to expire yet. The cynic in me wonders if it's because the powers that be can't guarantee Sevco will still be around when the deal expires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YER SISTERS YER MAW Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 A few pages back people were asking why a new TV deal is being negotiated so soon when the current one isn't due to expire yet. The cynic in me wonders if it's because the powers that be can't guarantee Sevco will still be around when the deal expires. It's probably to ensure that the 3rd biggest draw for viewing figures(ie, Accies) is still in the league when it expires.[emoji6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lionel hutz Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 I'm surprised that STV don't show more football considering they have a whole new second channel - that just shows a news program, taggart and Irish River City. You would think that the viewing figures would worth the fairly small fee that they would have to pay for Scottish football. Like they could have bought the rights to European Qualifiers and could have 100,000 viewers - which is an 86,000 increase on their next highest rated show (based on last week's figures). Maybe I'm missing something but it seems like common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowboy Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 that'll be STV, "the official channel of the England national team". the channel is a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkey Tennis Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 14 hours ago, The Master said: People say they would prefer to watch Morton v Dumbarton (or such like) over games involving Celtic and Sevco (and I agree with them) but the reality is that the viewing figures don't support the case for paying more than Alba currently do. If they did, then it probably wouldn't be Alba picking up the rights in the first place. I wonder if instead of live coverage, the lower leagues would be better served with a weekly highlights programme, still on Alba? Basically Scotsport First, but in Gaelic (and no David McKnney in sight). A featured game from the Championship, with the goals a major incidents from the other 14 games across the divisions. They could send their own camera(s) to Championship games, then use club footage for Leagues 1 and 2, like BT do for the English National League highlights. Yes, a decent highlights programme would be far mote attractive, to me at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.