League Reconstruction 20/21 season

[Ric]

 

2 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

How you get past that I dont know, but if we had stuck with Sky instead of Setanta clubs wouldnt have gotten so fucked financially.

Nonsense, and there is absolutely no basis in fact to support the claim.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Ric said:

 

Nonsense, and there is absolutely no basis in fact to support the claim.

I'm fairly sure the huge Setanta promise of money saw some clubs chucking amounts they couldnt afford around. When the promised money never arrived, the problems hit.

Edited May 24, 2020 by RandomGuy.

[Ric]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

I'm fairly sure the huge Setanta promise of money saw some clubs chucking amounts they couldnt afford around. When the promised money never arrived, the problems hit.

We both agree Setanta folding caused all sorts of problems, that's not the issue I'm raising. I'm saying it's just a nonsense idea that somehow Sky is punishing us for choosing that route a decade ago.

[RandomGuy.]

Just now, Ric said:

We both agree Setanta folding caused all sorts of problems, that's not the issue I'm raising. I'm saying it's just a nonsense idea that somehow Sky is punishing us for choosing that route a decade ago.

I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose. I'm saying due to the Setanta collapse our negotiating position is worse, so Sky can afford to offer less than they would need to if there was genuine competition. 

[Ric]

Just now, RandomGuy. said:

I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose. I'm saying due to the Setanta collapse our negotiating position is worse, so Sky can afford to offer less than they would need to if there was genuine competition. 

They do have competition though. BT and SKY both bid for the rights. The problem is our game (barring the OF borefests) is viewed as being an unsellable product outside of this country and, as I said already, our finances are set up in a way that requires a TV sponsorship deal. We both agree that we have a weak bargaining hand because of that.

[craigkillie]

There was genuine competition for our new deal, which is why we increased it by something like 60% compared to the current one despite selling fewer games.

Based on this Wikipedia page (not the best source around, so I'm happy for any of the numbers to be contradicted), the new deal is one of the highest in Europe on a per match basis.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_football_league_broadcast_deals_by_country

[effeffsee_the2nd]

Thislast page is nonsense, our first deal with sky was very good at least from a top flight perspective, when that one was up for renewal we asked for too much and ended up getting nothing( or close to nothing as the 2002/3 season was covered by the bbc for a pitted) everything else after than up until this day has been part of the domino effect of going from £40 million to £5 million in one season with many teams still having players under contract.
Strangely had we jumped onto the tv bandwagon earlier in the 90s we shortly after England did we could have had an amazing league as other big clubs were strong at that time and could have used the cash to compete with rangers rather than chase 3rd place. We’ll never know

[Lebowski]

I'm not saying they're doing it on purpose. I'm saying due to the Setanta collapse our negotiating position is worse, so Sky can afford to offer less than they would need to if there was genuine competition. 

It's worth bearing in mind that the collapse of Setanta wasn't due to the Scottish football deal where they were in profit, it was bidding stupid amounts for English football and not getting the required number of subscribers to pay for that which fucked them.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

the new deal is one of the highest in Europe on a per match basis.

It would be interesting to know if the number of games covered is similar to other leagues. The per match basis may be a great statistic until you find out it's based on 2 games per week while the English Premier (not a like for like, of course) is getting every single game covered.

[craigkillie]

The link that I posted shows that it is for far fewer games than most other countries, many of which put every single game on TV. However, most fans in this country would be up in arms if we had to move away from Saturday 3pm kick-offs every week, so the league is somewhat restricted in how many it can sell without pissing off its biggest source of income.

[Jacksgranda]

On 22/05/2020 at 13:30, Pet Jeden said:

tbf the £2.50 that BBC Alba throw at football might soon be more than SKY can manage

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/26/coronavirus-sky-and-bt-will-lose-1bn-if-sporting-events-stay-shut-until-august

 

That article's 2 months old. Have they lost that amount?

And - "pain will have to be shared across the supply chain with players’ pay first in line,” 

Ffs, who writes this shite?

[RandomGuy.]

47 minutes ago, Lebowski said:

It's worth bearing in mind that the collapse of Setanta wasn't due to the Scottish football deal where they were in profit, it was bidding stupid amounts for English football and not getting the required number of subscribers to pay for that which fucked them.

I've not said it had anything to do with Scottish football, just that the collapse severely affected Scottish football for years afterwards, and likely wouldnt have done if Scottish football had stayed with Sky instead.

[Jacksgranda]

On 22/05/2020 at 19:15, Aim Here said:

Some small part of why it's Hearts going down rather than St Mirren might be due to abnormal circumstances, sure - they had fewer chances than normal to avoid the drop. But really, the unjust 'damage' to the team that Hearts is shrieking about and demanding changing the league for, isn't anything more than what happens to at least one team under normal (unsuccessful) business-as-usual fitba'.

 

[Jacksgranda]

On 22/05/2020 at 19:44, The DA said:

I've said before that the SPFL clubs should agree to a 14 or even 16 team league and then tell Hearts they're still in the Championship - there must be both promotion AND relegation.

And what about the other 28/26 teams? What league do they go into?

[The DA]

1 minute ago, Jacksgranda said:

And what about the other 28/26 teams? What league do they go into?

Who cares?  As long as Hertz gang doon.

[Ric]

54 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

However, most fans in this country would be up in arms if we had to move away from Saturday 3pm kick-offs every week, so the league is somewhat restricted in how many it can sell without pissing off its biggest source of income.

We already rely on TV sponsorship and regularly move games to suit that.

I would wager the reason Hamilton versus St Mirren isn't moved from 3pm is nothing to do with any fan outcry but hat Sky is unwilling to broadcast it.

[craigkillie]

Are you not reading my posts and then just half-arsedly commenting on what you think they say? Currently we sell 1/2 games per week for TV, while many other countries sell every single game. That is a massive difference. Around 20% of our games next season will be televised, which means the other 80% will be completely unaffected by TV broadcasting. Do you think other countries don't have their equivalents of Hamilton v St Mirren? I could also point to the fact that a St Mirren v Hamilton game was broadcast little more than a year ago, and was moved to a Monday night as a result.

TV rights are a large source of income for Scottish football, but gate money is an even larger one, and it is absolutely shown to be the case that crowds are lower when games are on TV, and also lower when they kick off at "non-standard" times.

[Ric]

1 minute ago, craigkillie said:

Are you not reading my posts and then just half-arsedly commenting on what you think they say? Currently we sell 1/2 games per week for TV, while many other countries sell every single game. That is a massive difference. Around 20% of our games next season will be televised, which means the other 80% will be completely unaffected by TV broadcasting. Do you think other countries don't have their equivalents of Hamilton v St Mirren? I could also point to the fact that a St Mirren v Hamilton game was broadcast little more than a year ago, and was moved to a Monday night as a result.

TV rights are a large source of income for Scottish football, but gate money is an even larger one, and it is absolutely shown to be the case that crowds are lower when games are on TV, and also lower when they kick off at "non-standard" times.

You weren't being directly challenged. The first post was asking a clarification on a post you made, and as far as I am aware it was in isolation - not a reply, and the second was putting forward a premise that, as you have the statistics available to you where I don't, you could simply have provided that information without sounding so exasperated.

 

 

[Pet Jeden]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

That article's 2 months old. Have they lost that amount?

And - "pain will have to be shared across the supply chain with players’ pay first in line,” 

Ffs, who writes this shite?

Yes, that second sentence is a laugh. 

Re SKY, can't find much online. But I know they are losing the yoof, who wouldn't dream of subscribing - prefer netflix and all sorts of legal and illegal streams. Ad revenue will be blootered this year. Then add to that that households, due to furlough/unemployment/no football on the telly,  will be pausing the sports subscriptions or even quitting (if they can get through to Sky). Educated guess - they will be looking to tighten their belts.

[wastecoatwilly]

58 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

I've not said it had anything to do with Scottish football, just that the collapse severely affected Scottish football for years afterwards, and likely wouldnt have done if Scottish football had stayed with Sky instead.

You are talking mince, most Scottish football fans thought BT done a great job in showing the game, again we've sold your soul to a company that doesn't give a flying feck.
The core of support for Scottish football is in the UK so we pay more on a Sky package than we do to our clubs per year.
In Portugal they pay more to the clubs than they do to the TV company this is the way it should be.
We all know football in Scotland is one of the best supported countries across Europe to say we need a company like Sky is pie in the.......