New tv deal

[Jason King]

 

1 hour ago, Mark Connolly said:

You'd also imagine that the broadcasters there don't spend most of their time promoting a league in a different country.

And do you honestly believe that any wholly Scottish broadcaster would pay over £30 million per year for the SPFL? or that the SPFL would be the main selling point for ANY broadcaster?

 

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Jason King

[CambieBud]

The quoted figure of  about £33.3m a year would be over a 50% increase on the current deal, which is itself the biggest TV income the league has ever had. How much was being "hoped" for here?

On the face of it, good news. However, in reality, most likely £15 million to each of the bigots and £3 million split between everyone else. Doncaster is a t**t

[Dindeleux]

 

[Muzza81]

2 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

I have no problems with Sutton or McCoist as pundits, although Sutton's schtick gets a little trying after a while.  Certainly offer more insight than the likes of Michael Stewart or Packie Bonner, who, let's be honest, would be the alternatives.   

 

Very harsh on MS to even mention him in the same breath as that cretin Bonner.

[Squirrelhumper]

2 hours ago, The Master said:

To be fair, I don't think I've seen a Sky game where the programme has started less than 15 minutes before kick-off. 

The going straight off after full time is poor, though. They've kind of backed themselves into a corner with their named channels on that front. 

There was an old firm game that started less than 15 mins before KO.

[Squirrelhumper]

I like Michael Stewart as a pundit.

He's got a brain in his head, so can see why some would dislike him.

[PauloPerth]

Idealistic post time. 

The conditions of the deal are as important as the sum. None of the increased sum will filter down to supporters. No cheaper tickets or improved facilities. All it will do is encourage clubs to bid higher with wage offers for players, and player wages and agent fees are where all this increased income will go. We've been there before.  So let's not completely sell out as people have described the Norwegian deal, simply for the headline payment.

I'd rather we got a deal which resulted in less disruption to fixtures, fairer distribution of money, and a better spread of coverage, for example the old firm don't get nearly every single away game live but hardly any home ones, to shaft the attendances of the diddies, but not them. Financial incentives to clubs who are on live for the entertainment rating of a match etc.

I would probably prefer anything to sky. I think they are horrendous.  I've mostly enjoyed BT's coverage and wouldn't mind it continuing.

[craigkillie]

32 minutes ago, CambieBud said:

 

 

On the face of it, good news. However, in reality, most likely £15 million to each of the bigots and £3 million split between everyone else. Doncaster is a t**t

The financial distribution of TV money as prize money is publicly available on the SPFL website.  The team finishing 1st gets 13.4% of income, 2nd gets 9.6%, 3rd gets 8.25% and it tapers off downwards from there. Last year Celtic were 1st and Rangers were 3rd, so they took 21.65% of the money between them. Even if they finished in the top two spots, they would only get 23%.

[welldaft]

2 hours ago, Swello said:

I think there are 2 separate strands being discussed here - firstly, there is the amount of money involved - and I guess that is reaching the levels that it should be  (and that simply put, is all the SPFL/Clubs care about) and then there is the quality of the coverage itself and I've yet to see anyone that prefers Sky over BT on that side. Unfortunately, less money/better coverage is never a combination that would have a single club chairman voting for it.

 

I think we are all in agreement that BT sports coverage / punditry is considerable better than Sky. 

I cling to the hope that if it is Sky who win the rights solely on their own, they may decide to put more resource and effort into making it a better product.

Start by getting rid of the 2 Kris’s and poach Sutton, Craigan and Stewart from BT. I say poach but I assume they would be looking for new roles in any case........

[craigkillie]

Sutton might stay with BT since he does a lot of their English stuff anyway, but the other two and Darrell Currie would presumably be available.

[Gaz FFC]

5 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

for example the old firm don't get nearly every single away game live but hardly any home ones, to shaft the attendances of the diddies, but not them. 

Agreed with everything you said except this.

I'm not convinced people don't go to the game because it's live. More likely they don't want to listen to the shite both spew.

Whether or not the game is live and when the KO is isn't going to change that.

[Ross.]

20 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

Idealistic post time. 

The conditions of the deal are as important as the sum. None of the increased sum will filter down to supporters. No cheaper tickets or improved facilities. All it will do is encourage clubs to bid higher with wage offers for players, and player wages and agent fees are where all this increased income will go. We've been there before.  So let's not completely sell out as people have described the Norwegian deal, simply for the headline payment.

I'd rather we got a deal which resulted in less disruption to fixtures, fairer distribution of money, and a better spread of coverage, for example the old firm don't get nearly every single away game live but hardly any home ones, to shaft the attendances of the diddies, but not them. Financial incentives to clubs who are on live for the entertainment rating of a match etc.

I would probably prefer anything to sky. I think they are horrendous.  I've mostly enjoyed BT's coverage and wouldn't mind it continuing.

Agree with this.

Revenue from fans is the biggest income source for Scottish football, and will remain that even with the improved terms that are being bandied about. At best, most top teams will probably be picking up an extra half million or so, which will make little difference to the overall quality on show. They should be putting the fans first and taking the deal that means the fans get best quality, and that undoubtedly means BT.

I would go with BT for most of the games, and that internet mob getting a few to see how they do things. I think streaming is the way forward and should start working to provide a better service in that regard, but stick mostly with BT for now while 11sport earn their stripes, so to speak.

[Dons_1988]

As others have said the devil is in the detail here.

If sky want to take Scottish football seriously and promote the whole league great but I have more than heavy doubts.  Their coverage currently has nailed their colours to the mast on that one.  They see it as an Old Firm novelty act to attract the casual English viewer when their EPL matches aren't on.

An increased deal will probably be welcome and healthy for clubs that are struggling, however it won't improve the product on the pitch significantly and as PauloPerth noted it will not filter down to ticket prices etc.

Simply put, TV is designed for the mass market, not the dedicated fan, this is as true in England as it is in Scotland, it just so happens that England have a far more marketable product and they attract some world class talent because of it.

I will be stunned if this new TV deal has any benefit to average match going Scottish football fan either financially or simply the enjoyment of what they're seeing.

That's my cheery, optimistic view.

[coprolite]

1 hour ago, Spikethedee said:

TV deal is only about the money that my club gets, as far as I'm concerned; the only games we ever get covered are home games that I go to anyway or, back in the mists of time, away games across the road, which I would be going too as well. Can't honestly remember the last time we were on a live away game apart from that. (Queue comments about  no one wanting to watch them anyway.)

We will get a piddling offer, take it and then moan about the crap scheduling of games, as per usual...

The TV deal is about the money that all the teams get.  The difference between teams will increase.

Even if you finish top of the division next year, the teams in the premier will have had twice as much money from the deal as you. 

if you don't finish top, then premier teams and higher placed teams will get more money for longer. 

You might also notice fewer home games and more away ones get covered when you are one of the bigger clubs in your division.

It should be obvious that more money is better for scottish football as a whole.

It seems obvious to me that the benefits of more money would be increased for all if the additional money was split progressively.

What isn't immediately obvious, and is the point that I'm trying to make above, is that an increase in money for all clubs will tend to reduce the chances of any given club improving.  Inequality will increase. Mobility will decrease. 

Only thinking about the sum, and not the structure, is dense.

[Jason King]

16 minutes ago, coprolite said:

What isn't immediately obvious, and is the point that I'm trying to make above, is that an increase in money for all clubs will tend to reduce the chances of any given club improving.  Inequality will increase. Mobility will decrease. 

I dont know about that.

Cubs will continually appoint complete duds like Lee McCulloch, Neil McCann and Alan Stubbs as their manager to make things interesting at the bottom of the top flight/ top of the second tier. 

[coprolite]

6 minutes ago, Jason King said:

I dont know about that.

Cubs will continually appoint complete duds like Lee McCulloch, Neil McCann and Alan Stubbs as their manager to make things interesting at the bottom of the top flight/ top of the second tier. 

Agreed, but they do that anyway.

A team that has a marginally better manager than the team above them will be less likely to overtake, all else being equal.

 

[PauloPerth]

1 hour ago, Gaz FFC said:

Agreed with everything you said except this.

I'm not convinced people don't go to the game because it's live. More likely they don't want to listen to the shite both spew.

Whether or not the game is live and when the KO is isn't going to change that.

I can only talk about St Johnstone games Gaz, and we get our lowest home crowds when we play Rangers/ Celtic at McDiarmid.

You're right that there are other factors at play here, such as; being outnumbered at home, the OF fans and their bigotry, price for non-ST holders, the perceived injustices by officials, and the fact that there is a reasonable likelihood of getting hammered, but the fact is a lot less fans go and have the easier option of watching it on tv.  I have a few mates who would rather watch it in the pub and spend their money on drink.  If there wasn't the tv option then I think they'd head up.

I'm not so sure other games are as badly affected, but I don't know if we'd take 400 fans to Livingston on a freezing cold Wednesday night if the game was live on tv?

 

[The_Judge]

1 hour ago, welldaft said:

I think we are all in agreement that BT sports coverage / punditry is considerable better than Sky. 

I cling to the hope that if it is Sky who win the rights solely on their own, they may decide to put more resource and effort into making it a better product.

Start by getting rid of the 2 Kris’s and poach Sutton, Craigan and Stewart from BT. I say poach but I assume they would be looking for new roles in any case........

Stewart - Yup.  Sutton - Probably Not.  Craigan - Get Tae....

[PauloPerth]

4 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

I have no problems with Sutton or McCoist as pundits, although Sutton's schtick gets a little trying after a while.  Certainly offer more insight than the likes of Michael Stewart or Packie Bonner, who, let's be honest, would be the alternatives.   

 

You may not like Michael Stewart personally, but he is the least biased pundit out there, gives an honest opinion without trying to pander to folk in the game, takes a reasonable interest in and knowledge of all the top flight clubs and actually tries to give a decent tactical analysis.  He can get huffy and petulant when folk disagree with him admittedly.

Pat Bonner seems like a nice man. However, he has no interest in and very little knowledge of any team outwith Celtic, and possibly Rangers. He should be working for Celtic tv, or hosting Celtic hospitality lounges or supporters events. Basically nowhere near a national football programme.  Willie Miller the same regarding Aberdeen, although not quite as bad as Bonner.

To compare Stewart with Bonner is bizarre!

[Squirrelhumper]

1 hour ago, Gaz FFC said:

Agreed with everything you said except this.

I'm not convinced people don't go to the game because it's live. More likely they don't want to listen to the shite both spew.

Whether or not the game is live and when the KO is isn't going to change that.

I don't know many folk who give a f**k about what they sing, it's the fact it's £27 to go to a game at 12.15pm on a sunday live on TV.