Jump to content

What's the most "Tin Pot" thing you've seen in the SPFL


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Dons_1988 said:

I’ve said it many times on here but the fault lies with the league and not sky. 

We allow sky to market the game anyway they please because we are just desperate to get crumbs from their table. We’ve clearly got no negotiating hand, because if we did we could turn around and say hold on, either you market our game fairly and positively or we’ll go to BT, premier sports etc.

But that just isn’t there for them. Sky will simply say the uk wide audience is only interested in two teams so we’ll pay you for broadcasting rights but this is how we’re going to do it. Sky sports don’t have any moral obligation to present Scottish football in a certain way so the league need to grow a set. But they won’t, this is the path of least resistance and keeps them ticking over. 

Without knowing the details of how the deal is negotiated I can’t really say too much with any certainty, although I agree with your point overall. What I would say is that Sky have to shoulder a portion of the blame, because ultimately they are in charge of the full production. It’s not like Sky are some cowboy outfit, they are the biggest broadcaster in the country and should at the very least be upholding a standard of professionalism. There’s multiple examples of them using the wrong names, wrong badges, mistaking players etc. The SPFL should really be taking it as a given that an organisation such as Sky would strive to get these very simple details correct when awarding them a long term contract. Everything about the production is half arsed; the pundits they choose, the commentators (Crocker, Walker), there’s absolutely no attempt to do anything different that could improve the output. Crocker and Walker should have been sent packing years ago, their continued employment shows Sky arent willing to do anything other than the bare minimum.
 

Not showing their full quota of games last season should have seen the SPFL going in to any meetings with Sky with the demand that it doesn’t happen again, but I’m not sure they even care either. That was a slap in the face to the teams out with the OF, that Sky had literally paid the money to broadcast the games and couldn’t be bothered to carry out the production. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IrishBhoy said:

Without knowing the details of how the deal is negotiated I can’t really say too much with any certainty, although I agree with your point overall. What I would say is that Sky have to shoulder a portion of the blame, because ultimately they are in charge of the full production. It’s not like Sky are some cowboy outfit, they are the biggest broadcaster in the country and should at the very least be upholding a standard of professionalism. There’s multiple examples of them using the wrong names, wrong badges, mistaking players etc. The SPFL should really be taking it as a given that an organisation such as Sky would strive to get these very simple details correct when awarding them a long term contract. Everything about the production is half arsed; the pundits they choose, the commentators (Crocker, Walker), there’s absolutely no attempt to do anything different that could improve the output. Crocker and Walker should have been sent packing years ago, their continued employment shows Sky arent willing to do anything other than the bare minimum.
 

Not showing their full quota of games last season should have seen the SPFL going in to any meetings with Sky with the demand that it doesn’t happen again, but I’m not sure they even care either. That was a slap in the face to the teams out with the OF, that Sky had literally paid the money to broadcast the games and couldn’t be bothered to carry out the production. 

I totally agree about standards of professionalism - indeed I’ve just posted a frustration with their current live broadcast in the other thread. 

My point was more that if they want to place the OF as the main course, side dish and dessert of their SPFL coverage they will unless the league drives a different narrative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

I totally agree about standards of professionalism - indeed I’ve just posted a frustration with their current live broadcast in the other thread. 

My point was more that if they want to place the OF as the main course, side dish and dessert of their SPFL coverage they will unless the league drives a different narrative. 

Yes, in the spirit of the age we sold any soul we may have once had, to the highest bidder.  

That highest bidder can get away with a low bid, and half arsed coverage.  That bidder is commercial in nature and is therefore utterly incentivised to show the OF in away games all the time.  It certainly has no interest whatever in a greater good.

A contract with BBC Scotland sounds like a better idea, even if it would be slightly less lucrative.  That would only work though, if our public service broadcaster was reminded that it has a public service remit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, craigkillie said:


 

 


It's obviously true that the Old Firm account for the majority of games, but Motherwell v Hibs was shown on the opening weekend of last season, and Ross County v Motherwell on the opening weekend of the previous one.

 

If you don't live in the past and look at this season's fixtures, apart from Hibs v Hearts, which will almost always be shown, all Sky games have featured either Celtic or Rangers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

A contract with BBC Scotland sounds like a better idea, even if it would be slightly less lucrative.  That would only work though, if our public service broadcaster was reminded that it has a public service remit.

I was about to jump on this post until I read your last line. Can you imagine what BBC Scotland would do with the Premiership rights, it’s not worth thinking about. I think after a season on BBC we would be pining for the fair and balanced coverage of Sky Sports. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

If you don't live in the past and look at this season's fixtures, apart from Hibs v Hearts, which will almost always be shown, all Sky games have featured either Celtic or Rangers. 

 

The post I replied to said "Imagine we had a TV deal that showed a match like Aberdeen v Motherwell in the opening weeks of the season?". Those seasons were both part of the same deal and both featured those fixtures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

 

The post I replied to said "Imagine we had a TV deal that showed a match like Aberdeen v Motherwell in the opening weeks of the season?". Those seasons were both part of the same deal and both featured those fixtures.

We are living in the here and now not the last two seasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IrishBhoy said:

It’s as if they are embarrassed to show games between two teams out with the OF, like having either Rangers or Celtic involved lends the live games some credibility and makes it look better for the ‘English audience’, who’s opinion our media seem to hold in such high regard.

Every week one of them is live on TV usually away from home. I understand that Sky want the largest attendance for their advertising of mainly gambling firms.

But I’m sure in the EPL there are some agreements that are in place whereby clubs gets a minimum number of games televised.

The breakdown in the EPL is 

Domestic broadcast revenue is distributed on a 50:25:25 basis:

- 50% is divided equally between the clubs.

- 25% is awarded on a merit basis, determined by final league positions.

- 25% is distributed as a facilities fee for televised matches.

This article breaks down costs on a previous season.

https://sqaf.club/premier-league-tv-money-distribution/

I’m sure there have been many seasons when the only times St Mirren were televised were when the bigot brothers played in Paisley. So Rangers and Celtic are probably televised a minimum of 21 league games versus teams like St Mirren 3 league games. That is so unfair. 

Now Sky are dictating the terms of the contract, but the nodding dog Doncaster is not selling a fair representation of the Scottish game. How do smaller clubs grow their revenue if they are penalised so harshly by the footballing authorities?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IrishBhoy said:

I was about to jump on this post until I read your last line. Can you imagine what BBC Scotland would do with the Premiership rights, it’s not worth thinking about. I think after a season on BBC we would be pining for the fair and balanced coverage of Sky Sports. 

God knows, I moan plenty about BBC Scotland and its lurch towards tabloidy coverage on TV, radio and its website when it comes to our football.

However, as an institution, I'm still a big fan of the BBC, its remit and its funding model.  It's fashionable on here to attack everything about the BBC, but it's not where I'm coming from.  There would no doubt be frustrations, but it could scarcely conceivably offer less than Sky does currently.  

The fact that football could also reach a wider audience on free TV is also something that's overlooked.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SuperSaints1877 said:

Every week one of them is live on TV usually away from home. I understand that Sky want the largest attendance for their advertising of mainly gambling firms.

But I’m sure in the EPL there are some agreements that are in place whereby clubs gets a minimum number of games televised.

The breakdown in the EPL is 

Domestic broadcast revenue is distributed on a 50:25:25 basis:

- 50% is divided equally between the clubs.

- 25% is awarded on a merit basis, determined by final league positions.

- 25% is distributed as a facilities fee for televised matches.

This article breaks down costs on a previous season.

https://sqaf.club/premier-league-tv-money-distribution/

I’m sure there have been many seasons when the only times St Mirren were televised were when the bigot brothers played in Paisley. So Rangers and Celtic are probably televised a minimum of 21 league games versus teams like St Mirren 3 league games. That is so unfair. 

Now Sky are dictating the terms of the contract, but the nodding dog Doncaster is not selling a fair representation of the Scottish game. How do smaller clubs grow their revenue if they are penalised so harshly by the footballing authorities?
 

As others have pointed out though, Doncaster is simply doing the bidding of the clubs.  For them, the only criterion seems to involve the price of the contract.  Sky then do as they please.  The depressing reality simply will be that by showing the OF weekabout in away games, their viewing figures will be higher than they can otherwise get from our game.  Again, that's all that will possibly matter to them. 

It's an absolutely horrible arrangement though.  It totally plays to the narrative that only their games matter.  The fact that away games are always those covered, also means that it's the other, already impoverished, clubs who take the hit in terms of their home games being shifted to Sundays and getting smaller gates because of TV coverage.

It's the worst of all worlds, but our game has played a huge part in creating the situation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ranaldo Bairn said:

Plus the other 10 clubs are generally only ever seen being brutally pumped by the OF, thus furthering the appearance to any casual viewer that they are worthless jobbers. 

Yes, while increasing the appeal to children and the emotionally immature, of the OF.

 

The idea that the other clubs are simply background presences, wheeled out in order for the OF to steamroll, is reinforced at every turn.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was a diddy team, I'd lean in to the gimmick tbh. Hibs should rebrand as the Edinburgh Generals every time one of the Glasgow Globetrotters comes to Easter Road. Throw in some slapdash comedy errors and give the people what they want to see. 

Edited by G51
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DiegoDiego said:


 


The people want to see (The) Rangers die again.

There is no such team, Rangers died and were replaced by my beloved Sevco, who enjoy rude financial health and a rich European history. 

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...