Jump to content

The Famous Aberdeen - Season 2022/23


Guest

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AJF said:

He has absolutely framed the figures to suit a narrative.

I don't see much wrong with what he's said. I know that folk, particularly some Aberdeen fans, like giving Davie a good kicking, but I feel that he has represented what actually happens in a more accurate and fairer light than the Stewart Robertson statement. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems bizarre to me that after Aberdeen and other clubs released a study about how the Scottish game could better promote itself that one of the first actions taken after that is to accept a similarly crappy deal years before the current contract is ending without even attempting to look and see what the alternatives are.

Especially as Sky doing a shoddy job of promoting Scottish football is one of its main problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

Not sure what going to tender is going to acheive when the only realistic competition has already said they're not interested and that only leaves premier, who are presumably in regular contact with the organisation for their cup games. 

If all the options are shit, then your best option is still going to be shit. As sky is and will be. 

I think the sub plot here is likely to be a certain club from the dark side wanting to break away from a central, whole league, deal. If that is right, individual deals might just about benefit us but would be a disaster for the league. I think that's a far more likely alternative outcome of rejecting this deal than the league getting a better deal. 

You might be right, my gripe is less with the deal on the table than it is with daves way of communicating. 

 

33 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

I don't see much wrong with what he's said. I know that folk, particularly some Aberdeen fans, like giving Davie a good kicking, but I feel that he has represented what actually happens in a more accurate and fairer light than the Stewart Robertson statement. 

I’ve praised him when he deserves it and criticised similar. Arsehole behaviour to dismiss folk as just giving him a kicking. 

Edited by Dons_1988
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

I don't see much wrong with what he's said. I know that folk, particularly some Aberdeen fans, like giving Davie a good kicking, but I feel that he has represented what actually happens in a more accurate and fairer light than the Stewart Robertson statement. 

The thread I posted before details how he is painting a disingenuous picture of this proposed deal. 

Edited by AJF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, AJF said:

The thread I posted before details how he is painting a disingenuous picture of this proposed deal. 

My understanding, and if I'm wrong I'll happily admit as much, is that Sweden sell all of their matches to be shown live, whereas, although Sky have the rights to show any matches from the Scottish Premiership live they can only show 48 games. That's certainly not a  level playing field to use as a comparison to put the boot into the Sky deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rodhull said:

It just seems bizarre to me that after Aberdeen and other clubs released a study about how the Scottish game could better promote itself that one of the first actions taken after that is to accept a similarly crappy deal years before the current contract is ending without even attempting to look and see what the alternatives are.

Especially as Sky doing a shoddy job of promoting Scottish football is one of its main problems.

Sky would love us all to be EPL fanboys

Its absolutely ridiculous we expected to cough up the same subscription fee to watch Scottish football as the English leagues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dons_1988 said:

You might be right, my gripe is less with the deal on the table than it is with daves way of communicating. 

 

 

I think the criticism of his stats abuse is warranted but the rest looks like a fairly open disclosure of where we're at.

It's shit news to hear that we can't do any better. I'm sure if we could we would. It makes no sense for the clubs to try to push through a deal if there's better out there. 

1 hour ago, Rodhull said:

It just seems bizarre to me that after Aberdeen and other clubs released a study about how the Scottish game could better promote itself that one of the first actions taken after that is to accept a similarly crappy deal years before the current contract is ending without even attempting to look and see what the alternatives are.

Especially as Sky doing a shoddy job of promoting Scottish football is one of its main problems.

It does seem odd that it's more of the same and not, for example, exploring a streaming platform or something. I guess that having a longer term commitment with a known quantity makes it easier to budget and raise finance as well as allowing SPFL effort and resource to go into the other stuff (whatever that may be, committees and reports probably). 

It would be good if the new deal involves some marketing and promotion obligations for Sky but i won't hold my breath. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, coprolite said:

 

It's shit news to hear that we can't do any better. I'm sure if we could we would. It makes no sense for the clubs to try to push through a deal if there's better out there. 

It looks like the clubs have shat it. Sky have clearly come to them early and made this offer and either threatened or implied that if they don't accept it now they'll take the offer off the table completely or reduce it if it goes out to tender and the spfl teams are either too afraid or unwilling to take the risk or do the extra work. To quote the Simpsons with regards to the TV deal it very much seems to be a case of "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."

Now obviously it can be said fair enough it maybe is understandable that clubs don't want to take a risk like that but they can't also at the same time bleat on about the game being undersold and pretending they're putting together a great vision for the future. It makes it all the more likely that all this talk is exactly that, a talking shop where nothing is achieved besides making themselves feel pro-active/important.

Edited by Rodhull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Rodhull said:

they can't also at the same time bleat on about the game being undersold and pretending they're putting together a great vision for the future. It makes it all the more likely that all this talk is exactly that, a talking shop where nothing is achieved besides making themselves feel pro-active/important.

While I understand unhappiness with DC statement and how he has phrased it, he may not have had too much choice. Even if 5 clubs want to go "another way", there are still many who will happily accept the status quo.

FWIW, I know that Hibs (and I suspect Aberdeen and the others in that wee group) were looking into what some other countries do about selling rights live on matchdays - not just to fans abroad - kinda like we had during covid.

I fully expect some similar mealy mouthed pish from our owner too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kingjoey said:

My understanding, and if I'm wrong I'll happily admit as much, is that Sweden sell all of their matches to be shown live, whereas, although Sky have the rights to show any matches from the Scottish Premiership live they can only show 48 games. That's certainly not a  level playing field to use as a comparison to put the boot into the Sky deal.

Yes, I believe that is correct. But the way I see it, while Sky may only show 48 games, the deal we have in place with them prevents us from brokering a deal with another broadcaster to show any more. So in effect, the deal with Sky is for all of our matches because it prohibits our ability to sell the remainder to anyone even if they don't get shown on Sky.

That's why I think the value per game stuff is all a bit misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AJF said:

Yes, I believe that is correct. But the way I see it, while Sky may only show 48 games, the deal we have in place with them prevents us from brokering a deal with another broadcaster to show any more. So in effect, the deal with Sky is for all of our matches because it prohibits our ability to sell the remainder to anyone even if they don't get shown on Sky.

That's why I think the value per game stuff is all a bit misleading.

It’s no more misleading than comparing the deals like for like. Probably a better way of comparing, if anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AJF said:

Yes, I believe that is correct. But the way I see it, while Sky may only show 48 games, the deal we have in place with them prevents us from brokering a deal with another broadcaster to show any more. So in effect, the deal with Sky is for all of our matches because it prohibits our ability to sell the remainder to anyone even if they don't get shown on Sky.

That's why I think the value per game stuff is all a bit misleading.

There are probably three or four ways of looking at this, but the bottom line is that Sweden have the rights to all the matches and can and do show them all. Sky have the pick of all of the matches but only show 48. The two deals are totally different. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Leith Green said:

While I understand unhappiness with DC statement and how he has phrased it, he may not have had too much choice. Even if 5 clubs want to go "another way", there are still many who will happily accept the status quo.

FWIW, I know that Hibs (and I suspect Aberdeen and the others in that wee group) were looking into what some other countries do about selling rights live on matchdays - not just to fans abroad - kinda like we had during covid.

I fully expect some similar mealy mouthed pish from our owner too.

From August, before the extension was negotiated:

HIBS chief Ron Gordon reckons the new SPFL TV deal IS good for the game - and reckons it can help clubs reach their £50 million jackpot goal.

The Easter Road supremo believes Sky Sports are the 'best partners' for the Scottish game, and reckons that view is 'validated by the findings of this week's Deloitte report.

The report, commissioned by Hibs and four other clubs, looked into how to increase revenues in our game.

Premiership clubs now reckon they can be aiming to increase annual revenue in the SPFL to £50 million by 2029.

That would be a big jump from the £28.5m shared among the SPFL's clubs last season.

SunSport revealed last week that the SPFL were closing in on a new agreement with Premiership broadcasters Sky.

It would be a deal worth £30m per season that includes 60 live matches, 12 more than the current deal.

Clubs would also have the opportunity to broadcast five games on PPV that aren't selected for televised coverage.

Response to the proposed new deal have been varied, but Hibs chief Gordon has backed it.

He said: “I feel Sky are the best partners for us but the Deloitte report also validated this. I feel they are the best partner for us, for a variety of reasons.

"They are tried and true and all we are trying to do is to make it better.

“It is also the home of the best football in the UK. The Premier League is there and we are the little brother of the Premier League.

"If you want to see top football then you want to be on Sky. That is not to say there won’t be other players further down the road because we will have opportunities to go with a second package in three years, assuming this Sky deal moves the way we all think it is going to move.

"I don’t have any visibility of anybody who can play to the level of Sky as it stands.”

Gordon also confirmed the pay-per-view discussions.

During the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, clubs were able to broadcast non-televised matches on their in-house TV channels, but the 3pm Saturday blackout has returned this campaign for games not picked for broadcast.

He added: “We are also in talks about pay-per-view. We don’t have that at the moment and we are trying to carve that out, which would be excellent.

 

"We want to protect our gate, have more exposure and create another revenue through the pay-per-view which we currently don’t have.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

It’s no more misleading than comparing the deals like for like. Probably a better way of comparing, if anything.

 

1 hour ago, kingjoey said:

There are probably three or four ways of looking at this, but the bottom line is that Sweden have the rights to all the matches and can and do show them all. Sky have the pick of all of the matches but only show 48. The two deals are totally different. 

I think we will probably need to agree to disagree on it. It seems to be getting widespread ridicule, with many Aberdeen fans saying the same.

I think this highlights why it comes across as disingenuous

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, AJF said:

 

I think we will probably need to agree to disagree on it. It seems to be getting widespread ridicule, with many Aberdeen fans saying the same.

I think this highlights why it comes across as disingenuous

 

This Richard Wilson chap didn’t say “I don’t believe it” once. An imposter conjured by by Sky to make big Dave look like a fanny IMO (in my opinion). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, AJF said:

 

I think we will probably need to agree to disagree on it. It seems to be getting widespread ridicule, with many Aberdeen fans saying the same.

I think this highlights why it comes across as disingenuous

 

"But given that TV games don’t really cost anything extra to put on compared to normal games," 

False. They have an opportunity cost in forgone revenue from other sources. 

He's calculated that £7.8m could be a break even for lost ST sales in a worst case scenario. That looks like possibly a reasonably based estimate. To balance out the fact that that's worst case, it doesn't include hospitality, walk ups etc. I'd expect hospitality to be worst hit and that's a big part of Aberdeen's strategy.  Where's the evidence that anything like that is acheivable? 

And he doesn't make any further pertinent arguments. He makes an assertion that there's "no interest in finding out" if there's a better deal, without any support for that assertion. 

I'm sure i recognise this guy's name from the banter years as a sevco propagandist and this just reads like a regurgitation of Stewart Robinson's unsupported contentions (acknowledging that Dave's statement that they've talked to the market is also unsupported). 

I don't know why the clubs are behind this deal and feel the need to push it through now.

I do find it hard to believe that a load of rich and successful people who are going to be on the hook for underwriting losses would willingly and knowingly enter into a deal that increases those losses, if they don't need to. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coprolite said:

"But given that TV games don’t really cost anything extra to put on compared to normal games," 

False. They have an opportunity cost in forgone revenue from other sources. 

He's calculated that £7.8m could be a break even for lost ST sales in a worst case scenario. That looks like possibly a reasonably based estimate. To balance out the fact that that's worst case, it doesn't include hospitality, walk ups etc. I'd expect hospitality to be worst hit and that's a big part of Aberdeen's strategy.  Where's the evidence that anything like that is acheivable? 

And he doesn't make any further pertinent arguments. He makes an assertion that there's "no interest in finding out" if there's a better deal, without any support for that assertion. 

I'm sure i recognise this guy's name from the banter years as a sevco propagandist and this just reads like a regurgitation of Stewart Robinson's unsupported contentions (acknowledging that Dave's statement that they've talked to the market is also unsupported). 

I don't know why the clubs are behind this deal and feel the need to push it through now.

I do find it hard to believe that a load of rich and successful people who are going to be on the hook for underwriting losses would willingly and knowingly enter into a deal that increases those losses, if they don't need to. 

I’ve never come across him before today so you may be correct that he is critical due to his leanings. But it would be hard to level that accusation at everyone who has been critical of Cormack’s comments and there is an abundance of them.

This whole opportunity cost is also interesting. In that thread they gave examples where there was no material difference in attendances and others where it actually increased following their TV deal. I’m not sure how that would adapt to any potential SPFL deal but it is really just speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...