Sky Sports are Taking the Piss Thread

[Connor1874]

Just now, The Master said:

Sky show 128 EPL games, BT 52 and Amazon 20 (=200, out of 380 total). 

There’s also maximum and minimum quotas on team. Sky can only show each team a maximum of 21 times.

The other key difference between the TV deal down south and up here is that their contract gives the broadcasters the “right and obligation“ to show matches. In other words, in the unlikely event Sky didn’t show their full quota of 128 games, there would be a contractual penalty to pay. 

Knew there was a minimum, but wasn't sure there was a maximum. It would make sense though as to why they show games between say, Norwich vs Brighton, as it covers them more for the minimum quota, without pushing the maximum quota of say the bigger teams if they only show Norwich or Brighton playing them.

[Swello]

27 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

Aren’t we our own worst enemies though?  I mean, how many non-OF fans will still subscribe to sky sports?  I bet there’s plenty.  

Would be genuinely interested to find out what the reality is here. I'm not interested in English Football at all, I go to most Motherwell games home and away and Sky don't typically show any Scottish games from our league that I'm interested in outside of the playoffs - there is no point in me subscribing. 

I guess there are a lot of non-OF supporters that primarily pay for it for English football rather than the couple of times a year that their team is on Vs OF.

[Hendo]

1 minute ago, Rugster said:

I don't think he was being entirely serious with his post. 

You can never tell on here sometimes.

[Rugster]

1 minute ago, Hendo said:

You can never tell on here sometimes.

Fair point.

[Ginaro]

11 minutes ago, Connor1874 said:

Alternatively, I've had similar thoughts but more about the non-league game. I'd love to see more of their matches played on a Friday night or even a Sunday, particular in places like Edinburgh or Glasgow. I follow the EoS and LL closely, and would love to take in more games than I do, but as they're all 2/3pm kick offs on a Saturday, I seldom get the chances as I'm a ST holder at Tynecastle.

Even if it was just a handful of games on some sort of rotational basis, not necessarily entire matchdays on a different day. Not sure how drastic it would increase crowds but would be interesting to see if they experimented with it.

Funny you should say that as I noticed there's five EOS games being played this Friday. 

[PauloPerth]

3 minutes ago, Swello said:

Would be genuinely interested to find out what the reality is here. I'm not interested in English Football at all, I go to most Motherwell games home and away and Sky don't typically show any Scottish games from our league that I'm interested in outside of the playoffs - there is no point in me subscribing. 

I guess there are a lot of non-OF supporters that primarily pay for it for English football rather than the couple of times a year that their team is on Vs OF.

I think thats where BT were good. I tuned into quite a few games as a neutral that they would show involving neither of the OF.

Think this season is probably made worse in that both halves are skelping pretty much everyone they play. Neutrals are probably happy to watch matches where there is, or at least a chance, of a shock.

[hk blues]

2 minutes ago, The Master said:

Sky show 128 EPL games, BT 52 and Amazon 20 (=200, out of 380 total). 

There’s also maximum and minimum quotas on team. Sky can only show each team a maximum of 21 times.

The other key difference between the TV deal down south and up here is that their contract gives the broadcasters the “right and obligation“ to show matches. In other words, in the unlikely event Sky didn’t show their full quota of 128 games, there would be a contractual penalty to pay. 

Cheers. 

Where I am it's not Sky so I'm out of the loop but it seems that Man U in particular are on more weeks than not over here, at least on Sat and Sun.  I don't watch the midweek games so maybe my view is skewed.  

[Connor1874]

5 minutes ago, Ginaro said:

Funny you should say that as I noticed there's five EOS games being played this Friday. 

Good spot Ginaro, cheers. Leith Athletic looks enticing.

[craigkillie]

The difference between our deal and the English one is that the English PL are in an incredibly strong negotiating position and therefore have been able to get what they want in terms of both money and exposure.

In their last deal with Sky the SPFL were in a slightly stronger position than previously due to the presence of BT and others, but probably still only had the ability to prioritise either money OR exposure in their negotiations and they clearly went for the former. This was what the clubs wanted though, along with the maximum of 4 games per ground. If the clubs wanted more games on or more variety of fixtures then they could have made that available and would likely have got another combined Sky/BT deal, but would probably have been giving away more for the same money.

[Clown Job]

5 minutes ago, PauloPerth said:

I think thats where BT were good. I tuned into quite a few games as a neutral that they would show involving neither of the OF.

Think this season is probably made worse in that both halves are skelping pretty much everyone they play. Neutrals are probably happy to watch matches where there is, or at least a chance, of a shock.

Not only that the production value and the promotion of our game was vastly superior.

[Clown Job]

3 hours ago, ftk said:

Spfl tv the way forward.

With access to the full catalog of historical games for you to watch.

 

 

[accies1874]

Alternatively, I've had similar thoughts but more about the non-league game. I'd love to see more of their matches played on a Friday night or even a Sunday, particular in places like Edinburgh or Glasgow. I follow the EoS and LL closely, and would love to take in more games than I do, but as they're all 2/3pm kick offs on a Saturday, I seldom get the chances as I'm a ST holder at Tynecastle.
Even if it was just a handful of games on some sort of rotational basis, not necessarily entire matchdays on a different day. Not sure how drastic it would increase crowds but would be interesting to see if they experimented with it.

Does anyone know how Edinburgh City's attendances have been affected this season by their home games moved to Friday nights?

[Connor1874]

1 minute ago, accies1874 said:

28 minutes ago, Connor1874 said:

Alternatively, I've had similar thoughts but more about the non-league game. I'd love to see more of their matches played on a Friday night or even a Sunday, particular in places like Edinburgh or Glasgow. I follow the EoS and LL closely, and would love to take in more games than I do, but as they're all 2/3pm kick offs on a Saturday, I seldom get the chances as I'm a ST holder at Tynecastle.
Even if it was just a handful of games on some sort of rotational basis, not necessarily entire matchdays on a different day. Not sure how drastic it would increase crowds but would be interesting to see if they experimented with it.

Does anyone know how Edinburgh City's attendances have been affected this season by their home games moved to Friday nights?

Think they've been averaging around 200-300 most weeks. Their game on the weekend there was actually 3pm on a Saturday but no idea what the crowd was like. Think it'll be interesting to see the difference looking back once they've moved to Meadowbank and their games are mostly on Saturday afternoons again. Then again, the downside of Friday night games at that level is it no doubt impacts travelling support. Again, not talking huge differences, but for fans of say Elgin or Stranraer, there's certainly going to be more of them coming to Edinburgh for a Saturday afternoon game than a Friday evening game.

[Theyellowbox]

3 hours ago, Leith Green said:

Do you mean supporters or people who follow certain teams on the TV?

The Sky argument would go something along the lines of "we always get bigger audiences for matches involving Rangers and Celtic than those matches where neither are involved"

Its difficult to argue against that point, on the basis that there are so few of the latter to compare with the former.

It is similar to the laughable argument that used to be trotted out by Peter Lawell that other clubs needed to provide more of a challenge...............while simultaneously sending lowball offers into competitor clubs for their best assets.

It would be interesting to see the Sky viewing figures for the entire game when Rangers and Celtic are involved. If I do watch a game where they are playing vs another team other than my own, as soon as they go a couple up, I just switch off as 99% of the time that is the game done. I'm sure I'm not alone.

There is also a bit of a quirk in the viewing figures too. Obviously they will get more due to their fan base size, but for all or certainly most I assume, certainly is true of Saints the lowest home crowd of the season is the Rangers and Celtic games, so you will get a decent portion of fans watching those games at home, whereas say St Mirren vs Motherwell probably would have similar support in stadium whether it was on tv or not. Clearly wouldn't be huge numbers of additional/less viewers, but still.

Also, I think you'd find that in the EPL, you'd probably get fans of all teams watch the live games on Sky whether their team is on or not. In Scotland, I'd imagine if Celtic are on, not many Rangers fans are watching and vice vesa if Rangers are on. I base that on no concrete data, just anecdotal etc. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Theyellowbox

[Alert Mongoose]

I actually think Sky might get themselves into difficulty in the near future.

As far as I can see the percentage of overall subscription revenue spent on showing English games is starting to dwarf the sports top up subscribers. At some point people who subscribe to Sky for reasons other than sport are going to suggest that their money is being redirected away from what they are paying for. 

Netflix et al are stepping up non-sports output which then may see people cancelling subs. Indeed, the move from analogue to digital TV and Sky's early dominance of the satellite market might be the only thing saving them at the moment.

The final nail might be if pubs start to see people drifting away as they can't afford going out as much and bin their commercial subs.

Don't buy shares in Sky.

[The Master]

35 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

This was what the clubs wanted though, along with the maximum of 4 games per ground.

Minor point, but it’s 5 games per ground. 

 

[Dons_1988]

46 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

The difference between our deal and the English one is that the English PL are in an incredibly strong negotiating position and therefore have been able to get what they want in terms of both money and exposure.

In their last deal with Sky the SPFL were in a slightly stronger position than previously due to the presence of BT and others, but probably still only had the ability to prioritise either money OR exposure in their negotiations and they clearly went for the former. This was what the clubs wanted though, along with the maximum of 4 games per ground. If the clubs wanted more games on or more variety of fixtures then they could have made that available and would likely have got another combined Sky/BT deal, but would probably have been giving away more for the same money.

This is all true and it’s partly because of the way we position ourselves in the market. 

I’m not his biggest fan but I remember Darryl broadfoot saying we need to decide if we want to be ‘Hollywood blockbuster or arthouse’ as a brand. I think right now we’re desperate to be taken seriously as Hollywood but the fact is beyond our borders people just aren’t that interested. It also dictates that we have to use the old firm as figureheads for that because they’re the only clubs that can pull any sort of viewing numbers beyond Scotland worth noting. 

I can’t see it happening as it would involve a fundamental downsizing of the game but if we went arthouse and tailored Scottish football to the more niche demographic that it clearly appeals to then we’d have much more freedom to market the game as we pleased. 

 

[10menwent2mow]

1 hour ago, Arch Stanton said:

Yet another season where Sky haven't shown a St. Mirren away game.

They can get to f**k.

I'd hazard a guess that St Mirren are not alone in this regard. I think our only away game on Sky was actually the trip to St Mirren. Has there been another televised league game apart from that which hasn't been a derby or involved Rangers or Celtic?

[The Master]

Just now, 10menwent2mow said:

I'd hazard a guess that St Mirren are not alone in this regard. I think our only away game on Sky was actually the trip to St Mirren. Has there been another televised league game apart from that which hasn't been a derby or involved Rangers or Celtic?

There were a few early in the season. Dundee v Hibs was one. 

[craigkillie]

11 minutes ago, The Master said:

Minor point, but it’s 5 games per ground. 

 

I don't think it is as per the original deal. It was made clear at that stage that it would be four per ground, and that's why, for example, Edinburgh and Dundee derbies haven't all been shown.

However, I believe that there was a renegotiation in 2020 which permitted Sky to show up to 5 from each ground (and 6 from Celtic Park) in exchange for the concessions on streaming etc. Incredibly thick Rangers-minded journalist "Bruce Archer" made an arse of himself last year by claiming that this actually consituted extra games on the deal (ie an increase from 48), which it did not. I'm not sure if it's still in place now.