Sky Sports are Taking the Piss Thread

[IrishBhoy]

2 minutes ago, lubo_blaha said:

 

Not sure I buy the idea that Sky is some outdated organisation which will be phased out in the near future. They’ve been in the streaming game for more than a decade and their Now platform is the equivalent to DAZN, Discovery+ etc.

 

Aye I don’t think they are going to disappear anytime soon, but in the last few years there has definitely been a move away from the subscription model Sky use, towards platforms like Amazon, Dazn etc., who might not show as much content but price themselves accordingly. There’s also the problem of IPTV/illegal streaming to contend with, which is always going to be a problem, but another long term contract with Sky is going to push more people down that road. I’m 90 odd quid a month for my Sky package, 12 for Premier and 25 odd for BT. I think it’s something like £20 a month for IPTV and the streams are getting better and more reliable now. 

As I say it’s hard to comment without knowing the ins and outs, but I would be seriously underwhelmed if we sign another contract with Sky without tender, and have to put up with their pitiful coverage of our game for another 8 years. Kris Boyd, John Hartson and Ian Crocker on our screens every week for the next 8 years, it would make you sick. 

[The Master]

22 minutes ago, G51 said:

a) the five-games-per-ground rule holds, which I notice is conspicuous through it's omission from the Scotsman's press release. Whose to say this isn't just going to be Sky showing loads of Rangers and Celtic home games?

I’m pretty sure that will hold, because clubs would prefer fewer home games moved for TV, not more.

[lubo_blaha]

Aye I don’t think they are going to disappear anytime soon, but in the last few years there has definitely been a move away from the subscription model Sky use, towards platforms like Amazon, Dazn etc., who might not show as much content but price themselves accordingly. There’s also the problem of IPTV/illegal streaming to contend with, which is always going to be a problem, but another long term contract with Sky is going to push more people down that road. I’m 90 odd quid a month for my Sky package, 12 for Premier and 25 odd for BT. I think it’s something like £20 a month for IPTV and the streams are getting better and more reliable now. 
As I say it’s hard to comment without knowing the ins and outs, but I would be seriously underwhelmed if we sign another contract with Sky without tender, and have to put up with their pitiful coverage of our game for another 8 years. Kris Boyd, John Hartson and Ian Crocker on our screens every week for the next 8 years, it would make you sick. 

Yeah, don’t disagree with that. With new entrants to the market the you’re always going to get it cheaper initially, I remember BT being £5 p/m when they first came on the scene.

The trick to pay less with Sky/Now is to go to cancel. They always offer you a better deal. The standard price for Now Sports is around £34 although there’s fixed term £20/25 deals floating about all the time. Before it’s about to jump up to full price, go to cancel on the app and they offer you the same deal you were on or better every time. I’m paying £17 for the full sports package atm.

[craigkillie]

1 hour ago, G51 said:

The SPFL briefing it's pet journalists I see.

If the big idea was to sell more games to Sky to increase the TV revenue, they might have told us that in the first place. 

I'm not quite sure how they're going to square it with the 3pm traditionalists, but I guess that's their problem. 

Lets do some maths shall we?

Current deal: 48 games, £29.5m per season = £615,000(ish) per game. 

New deal: 60 games, £30m per season = £500,000 per game.

New deal with option: 80 games, £38m per season = £475,000 per game. 

Doesn't seem that great to me!

 

The same person you've accused of being a "pet journalist" literally wrote a story about three days ago explaining why fans weren't happy with the proposed deal.

The SPFL haven't said anything publicly about this, aside from a few quotes here and there, and most of the details have probably been leaked by clubs. Sounds like they've just been letting it out bit by bit, giving the usual suspects just about enough rope to hang themselves with in the meantime. A lesson in keeping your powder dry for some, it would seem.

As for the last part, I am shocked and amazed to discover that Motherwell v Aberdeen might not be as valuable a game as Celtic v Rangers. Who could have guessed?

 

 

Edited August 14, 2022 by craigkillie

[stu92]

1 hour ago, G51 said:

a) the five-games-per-ground rule holds, which I notice is conspicuous through it's omission from the Scotsman's press release. Whose to say this isn't just going to be Sky showing loads of Rangers and Celtic home games?

Do they even show five Rangers and Celtic home games per season now? OF derbies and the odd random game where attendances aren’t likely to be affected aside (i.e. flag day) it doesn’t feel like there are very many games at Ibrox or Parkhead shown live. Be that by coincidence or design, who knows. 

[The Master]

10 hours ago, stu92 said:

Do they even show five Rangers and Celtic home games per season now? OF derbies and the odd random game where attendances aren’t likely to be affected aside (i.e. flag day) it doesn’t feel like there are very many games at Ibrox or Parkhead shown live. Be that by coincidence or design, who knows. 

Obviously the 4 game rule is why we don't see many Celtic and Rangers home games.

On top of the 2 derbies (at one ground), they'll also cover flag day and trophy day. 

I think as well the increase to 5 will have been pushed by Sky so they can show more OF home games. Take this season for example - Celtic are due two post-split home games, but not a home derby. So by the time the split comes, they'll have already been shown at home 3 times (opening day + 2 derbies). This means Sky could potentially miss Celtic winning the title (or lifting the trophy). With 5 games, they have more flexibility. 

[Estragon]

One wonders what the impact to the Old Firm would be to show more of their home games really - whether matchday income would be offset by the increase in sponsorship that they could levy for, given their massively enhanced TV presence.  Though in all honesty, given the size of each support I wouldn't even be so certain that moving all their matches to TV would drastically affect attendance anyway.

[craigkillie]

26 minutes ago, The Master said:

Obviously the 4 game rule is why we don't see many Celtic and Rangers home games.

On top of the 2 derbies (at one ground), they'll also cover flag day and trophy day. 

I think as well the increase to 5 will have been pushed by Sky so they can show more OF home games. Take this season for example - Celtic are due two post-split home games, but not a home derby. So by the time the split comes, they'll have already been shown at home 3 times (opening day + 2 derbies). This means Sky could potentially miss Celtic winning the title (or lifting the trophy). With 5 games, they have more flexibility. 

 

I'm sure that as part of the covid settlement, Sky were given the option to show more Celtic home matches if they wanted (maybe Rangers too). Not sure whether that extended through the entire deal or just for the first season or two.

It was misreported at the time by thick Sun journalist Bruce Archer as being extra games on the deal, but it was actually just a relaxation of the four home games per season.

[Arch Stanton]

As I said on the Tinpot thread,  I reckon the last time Sky covered a Saints away league game in the top flight was April 2009, the 2-0 win v Motherwell, possibly the 2-0 win at Falkirk later that season.

To not have had an away SPL/Premiership game covered by Sky in over 13 years is a disgrace.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Arch Stanton

[Nowhereman]

Why would anyone other than a Celtic/Rangers fan want a sky subscription? Do any fans of other clubs on here actually subscribe for Scottish football?

[VincentGuerin]

16 minutes ago, Nowhereman said:

Why would anyone other than a Celtic/Rangers fan want a sky subscription? Do any fans of other clubs on here actually subscribe for Scottish football?

I've wondered this myself. I don't subscribe because I'm not interested in the EPL or watching the Old Firm all the time.

I pay for Hearts TV and use a VPN to get me access to any Hearts games I can't go to. I share a log-in with a few mates to an Australian platform (Kayo) that shows a decent amount of Scottish/German/Italian fitba and use a VPN to access that to as and when I want. My share of that is about three quid  month.

No idea why Scottish fans would bother with Sky, unless OF fans.

[kingjoey]

On 13/08/2022 at 10:57, Clown Job said:

Not Sky, but this is a promo for Aston Villa v Everton this afternoon 

 

Please put me out of my misery and explain what is wrong with that. I just can’t see it and it’s doing my head in.

[Derry Alli]

23 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

Please put me out of my misery and explain what is wrong with that. I just can’t see it and it’s doing my head in.

He's just raging because it's a former Rangers manager 

[Jinky67]

19 hours ago, lubo_blaha said:

 

Not sure I buy the idea that Sky is some outdated organisation which will be phased out in the near future. They’ve been in the streaming game for more than a decade and their Now platform is the equivalent to DAZN, Discovery+ etc.

 

Wishful thinking by that poster and ironically look what was keeping me company on my lunch at work today

 

[Dandiest Don]

2 hours ago, kingjoey said:

Please put me out of my misery and explain what is wrong with that. I just can’t see it and it’s doing my head in.

Guessing it's cause they are in Liverpool and Chelsea kits rather than anything from the clubs the currently manage

[kingjoey]

38 minutes ago, Dandiest Don said:

Guessing it's cause they are in Liverpool and Chelsea kits rather than anything from the clubs the currently manage

If that is it, I've no idea why that is a problem for anyone.

[Theyellowbox]

21 hours ago, G51 said:

The SPFL briefing it's pet journalists I see.

If the big idea was to sell more games to Sky to increase the TV revenue, they might have told us that in the first place. 

I'm not quite sure how they're going to square it with the 3pm traditionalists, but I guess that's their problem. 

Lets do some maths shall we?

Current deal: 48 games, £29.5m per season = £615,000(ish) per game. 

New deal: 60 games, £30m per season = £500,000 per game.

New deal with option: 80 games, £38m per season = £475,000 per game. 

Doesn't seem that great to me!

 

Or, the alternative way to cut it is that Sky take up the extra 20 games, but still only show 42 and it works out at £900k per game. Even if they decided to show 50, its still c£750k per game. If they took up the option, then anything 60 games or less is better than the current deal.

The reason they might pay for the extra 20 games is that it blocks entry to other potential new competitors, Viaplay for example, by 'permitting' it, keeps the clubs sweet and if they lose other rights, EFL etc, then they have pretty cheap filler games.

If no one else shows interest, then they don't bid and they still get the games they really want.

£38m would mean the clubs could say they will pretty much meet the £50m per season target and is chicken feed to Sky.

Other consideration is, that presuming we have a pretty stable European coefficient, there will be c6 minimum and potentially 12 non Rangers or Celtic games shifted due to euro qualifiers that could easy be shown as outwith the 3pm Saturday already. Throw in the games when champions league nights are on (as they currently fo with EFL) if they lose EFL rights and pretty quickly, you can see how they could fill a lot of game slots.

Perfect solution is the £38m package all with sky with minimum games chosen or someone like BBC taking up the secondary package for free to air. 

[Theyellowbox]

53 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

If that is it, I've no idea why that is a problem for anyone.

Or if they had shown Aberdeen v Hibs a few years back and stuck McInnes in a Rangers strip and Lennon in a Celtic one on the advert? Folk would be going mental. 

[kingjoey]

45 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Or if they had shown Aberdeen v Hibs a few years back and stuck McInnes in a Rangers strip and Lennon in a Celtic one on the advert? Folk would be going mental. 

It's the English Premier League. Who gives a shit? @Clown Job obviously. 

[Derry Alli]

54 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Or if they had shown Aberdeen v Hibs a few years back and stuck McInnes in a Rangers strip and Lennon in a Celtic one on the advert? Folk would be going mental. 

It's the EPL. They're two of England's biggest name "golden generation" players going head to head. 

People probably would go mental as McInnes and Lennon never faced off, played with or are even from the same fucking country.