Jump to content

Sky Sports are Taking the Piss Thread


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

These are Sweden's next 3 league weekends (KO's = BST i.e. 1hr behind):

image.png.3d42044eb4b6ba11c178c0c8d32a41bc.png



image.png.5265779ea51a245ec4de711cd69a0769.png



image.png.e99e9e1341e669d8072026e26beaba94.png



Is this seriously what Scottish fans want i.e. to televise every match?

Play more Monday evenings than Saturday afternoons!

Or you could look at Germany where they still play most games as 15:30 CET kickoffs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kenrobell said:


They also sell every game we don’t clubs trying to get best deal without damaging season ticket sales merch sales if we sign deal at 80 games for 38 million ….. sky won’t show the 80 they will grab the extra to stop another broadcaster picking it up can see it being 50 games they show for 38 million is not bad money if you look at it that way plus they are giving clubs the option to ppv games

,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LiviLion said:

Yes we do.

We don’t, though. That’s a misunderstanding of how the rights work, that was started by Grant Russell. 

In the current deal, the rights to up to 48 games per season were sold to Sky. The SPFL chose to do so on an exclusive basis, meaning they can’t sell the rights to the remaining 180 games to anyone else. 

If I owned, say, a brewery and entered into an exclusive agreement to supply Tesco with 10,000 bottles of beer but produced double that, it doesn’t mean I’ve now sold 20,000 bottles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No we don’t. We agree not to sell the ones we haven’t sold.
Can Sky unilaterally decide to broadcast all our games? If they can’t, they don’t own the rights.

And it’s ovb the new deal has changed as well if we are looking at selling another two sets of ten games that sky will pick up aswell at 4 m I presume to stop premier sports picking them up
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, coprolite said:

No we don’t. We agree not to sell the ones we haven’t sold.

Can Sky unilaterally decide to broadcast all our games? If they can’t, they don’t own the rights.

If I've got two jackets and someone buys one of them from me for a tenner, but adds in a couple of quid extra to stop me selling the second one, as he wants to be the coolest c**t in town, then it might be technically correct to say I haven't 'sold' the second jacket.

But in effect I have. I've just accepted a shite price for it (diluting the value of the jacket I actually sold him) and I've agreed to just keep it as he doesn't want it that much anyway. I just can't wear it or sell it to anyone else.

So, you can argue semantically that the clubs haven't sold every game. But in the real world they have. If you no longer control an asset because a commercial partner gave you money, then you've sold that asset.

Edited by VincentGuerin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

If I've got two jackets and someone buys one of them from me for a tenner, but adds in a couple of quid extra to stop me selling the second one, as he wants to be the coolest c**t in town, then it might be technically correct to say I haven't 'sold' the second jacket.

But in effect I have. I've just accepted a shite price for it (diluting the value of the jacket I actually sold him) and I've agreed to just keep it as he doesn't want it that much anyway. I just can't wear it or sell it to anyone else.

So, you can argue semantically that the clubs haven't sold every game. But in the real world they have. If you no longer control an asset because a commercial partner gave you money, then you've sold that asset.

No you haven't. What a load of shite. 

In terms of your terrible analogy we can still wear the jacket. 

We can still play the unsold games when we want and won't be competing against tv coverage for ticket sales. 

It's not semantics. There is a real world substantive difference between selling rights to broadcast a game and agreeing to not sell those rights. 

Now clean yourself up, you dribbling mess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, coprolite said:

No you haven't. What a load of shite. 

In terms of your terrible analogy we can still wear the jacket. 

We can still play the unsold games when we want and won't be competing against tv coverage for ticket sales. 

It's not semantics. There is a real world substantive difference between selling rights to broadcast a game and agreeing to not sell those rights. 

Now clean yourself up, you dribbling mess. 

That's not very nice.

Anyway, you are Big Dave and I call you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, coprolite said:

No you haven't. What a load of shite. 

In terms of your terrible analogy we can still wear the jacket. 

We can still play the unsold games when we want and won't be competing against tv coverage for ticket sales. 

It's not semantics. There is a real world substantive difference between selling rights to broadcast a game and agreeing to not sell those rights. 

Now clean yourself up, you dribbling mess. 

I think his point is fair when you are talking in the context of the TV deal though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

I think his point is fair when you are talking in the context of the TV deal though.

It's not really. 

When we sell broadcast rights there's an opportunity cost to the clubs in terms of lost revenues from other potential broadcasters, and ticket sales. Tickets are affected both by direct competition from the game being on tv and by being moved to shitey times. I'd assume that hospitality packages and the like are disproportionately affected compared to normal ticket sales - eg a 30% dip in attendance from being moved to Monday evening could easily be a 75% dip in hospitality. 

When we agree not to sell those rights it's only the opportunity cost relating to other broadcasters. 

For balance, games being on tv might generate more sponsorship income but i'd guess that's marginal. 

After Sky have had their pick of the 48 games (all OF away games + Edinburgh derbies only gets them to 42) then what's left isn't very marketable. The value of that package is the opportunity cost of exclusivity.  

So the costs to the clubs depend a lot on the nature of the rights we sell. Exclusivity costs a lot less to sell than broadcast. It is qualitatively a different deal. 

33 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

That's not very nice.

Anyway, you are Big Dave and I call you out

I'll take the money and the teeth, but not the transatlantic accent. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, coprolite said:

It's not really. 

When we sell broadcast rights there's an opportunity cost to the clubs in terms of lost revenues from other potential broadcasters, and ticket sales. Tickets are affected both by direct competition from the game being on tv and by being moved to shitey times. I'd assume that hospitality packages and the like are disproportionately affected compared to normal ticket sales - eg a 30% dip in attendance from being moved to Monday evening could easily be a 75% dip in hospitality. 

When we agree not to sell those rights it's only the opportunity cost relating to other broadcasters. 

For balance, games being on tv might generate more sponsorship income but i'd guess that's marginal. 

After Sky have had their pick of the 48 games (all OF away games + Edinburgh derbies only gets them to 42) then what's left isn't very marketable. The value of that package is the opportunity cost of exclusivity.  

So the costs to the clubs depend a lot on the nature of the rights we sell. Exclusivity costs a lot less to sell than broadcast. It is qualitatively a different deal. 

I'll take the money and the teeth, but not the transatlantic accent. 

 

I guess the point is you still need to quantify the opportunity cost and deduct that from the deal to give a fair picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alert Mongoose said:

I guess the point is you still need to quantify the opportunity cost and deduct that from the deal to give a fair picture.

Absolutely.

But we're never going to be in a position where there's easy comparisons with other deals, for all sorts of reasons. 

I think the biggest issue with the Sky deal isn't the size of the payments. It's the lack of promotion outside the OF. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, coprolite said:

Absolutely.

But we're never going to be in a position where there's easy comparisons with other deals, for all sorts of reasons. 

I think the biggest issue with the Sky deal isn't the size of the payments. It's the lack of promotion outside the OF. 

And the shite kick off times meaning every single club lose out on Saturday afternoon corporate hospitality income as well as us losing derbies when we play home games against the Glasgow 2 meaning Hibs and Hearts especially rarely ever play a category A game on a Saturday and instead always shitey Sunday lunch time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For now the corporate hospitality point holds a wee bit of water, but I think it can be over-played as a determining factor of what our tv deal should look like.

However, the winds of change (sadly) seem to be coming in terms of the tv blackout on Saturday afternoons. Streaming, VPNs, obsession with top-end football are all coming together to mean that the Saturday afternoon blackout is now surely on borrowed time.

While I'm not in favour of televised games on Saturday afternoon, it's going to fundamentally shake up our tv deal opportunities. The corporate hospitality issue vanishes as a consideration and it's anybody's guess how the tv companies (and clubs) will see it in terms of how much, if possible, is too much, and what games compete against each other.

But the whole framework of the discussion of our tv deal will fundamentally change at some point in the next few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ray Patterson said:

Or you could look at Germany where they still play most games as 15:30 CET kickoffs?

Last matchday 4 of the 9 Bundesliga games were 15:30 kick offs https://www.xscores.com/soccer/country-games/germany/17-09

But they can do that and televise them all because most of their lower league games kick off at 13:00 or 14:00, plus Friday/Sunday games. No need for a 3pm blackout in other countries because they move all the kick-off times.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...