Sky Sports are Taking the Piss Thread

[craigkillie]

The way it was phrase suggested to me you thought it might be an SPFL rule rather than part of the contract. I don't really see any advantage to the SPFL in inserting it into the contract, it's more likely that the contract simply bought exclusive broadcasting rights and therefore all other broadcasts (including PPV) weren't permitted. This would have been fairly standard prior to the sort of mid 2010s when some decent streaming options became available.

[the jambo-rocker]

1 hour ago, Hoose Rice said:

Perhaps Sky said commit to the deal now show your loyalty and we will give you this new deal.  Leave it a year, take it to tender, we can't guarantee the same figures.

Do we gamble for next year, nobody comes near to Sky at tender and they wipe £30m off for showing lack of loyalty to the brand?   It's a huge risk either way, obviously not worth taking for the majority of clubs owners and they aren't stupid people and not in it to lose money. 

I'm not doubting there's truth in that, but it doesn't leave a good taste in the mouth. Sky are only protecting themselves, which they have every right to. However, the 'take it or you'll get less' option with this much time on their side before expiry doesn't scream a business partner that deals in good faith, and more like an trade union and a tight-arsed employer IMO.

There should always be some wiggle room and I'm seeing none of it. All for little Non-OF match coverage, Sunday @ 12 Kick offs and Andy fucking Walker & co for 7 more years...for little to no increase. All I see is more of the self-serving decision making that will move the game up here fucking nowhere for another decade.

Edited September 26, 2022 by the jambo-rocker

[lubo_blaha]

Sky don’t “let” them do anything. The EFL set the terms of their agreement with Sky (following a tendering process).
Of course, it’s also not clear if the inability to stream non-televised, non-Saturday 3pm games up here is a Sky condition or an SPFL condition. 

I’m sure if Sky really didn’t want them to stream games then it wouldn’t be part of the agreement.

Not that it really matters anyway, I was just pointing out that EFL clubs can stream certain games.

[The Master]

1 hour ago, lubo_blaha said:

I’m sure if Sky really didn’t want them to stream games then it wouldn’t be part of the agreement.

The EFL put their rights out to tender, and so control the terms of the agreement.

The SPFL don’t put their rights out to tender, and so dance to whatever tune Sky play. 

[Hoose Rice]

45 minutes ago, The Master said:

The EFL put their rights out to tender, and so control the terms of the agreement.

The SPFL don’t put their rights out to tender, and so dance to whatever tune Sky play. 

Obviously other parties wanted a chance to get the rights then.  Lucky them they have the Championships as a massive bargaining chips for them.  

Sure we would tender our rights if we had a passage to the most lucrative League in World Fitba.  

[kingjoey]

21 hours 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 was an excellent post up until the last sentence. Why did you feel the need to do that?

[coprolite]

11 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

That was an excellent post up until the last sentence. Why did you feel the need to do that?

Poor social skills

[RandomGuy.]

- The SPFL as a whole could do more, and do things better, to help increase the TV deal. Its lower than we deserve.

- Theres little interest from companies in showing games and we're stuck either with the guaranteed Sky money, or taking a Setanta-esque punt on something new and unproven, so Sky have us over a barrel. 

Both these things are true, to me.

Edited September 27, 2022 by RandomGuy.

[kennie makevin]

22 minutes ago, kingjoey said:

That was an excellent post up until the last sentence. Why did you feel the need to do that?

Because he's a dribbling mess ?

[EK2DK]

The fact that Crocker's commentating is utterly, utterly woeful aside, the deal itself is a nail in the coffin type event for Scottish football. 

It serves to show the bowling club committee mentality that the governing body has when planning the game. It is navel gazing of the highest order and utterly pathetic. I believe it sadly clearly shows the lack of inventive thinking which has plagued our game for decades and is a significant step in cementing a Daily Record mentality at the time when there might actually be the chance to change it - with greater European participation and a higher level of wealth entering the league for the first time in years. Yes, the disparity between OF and the rest is getting wider which could be handled much more effectively however given it's Scottish football governance we are talking about - let's take it one step at a time. 

Comments surrounding getting what we can because we play second fiddle to the EPL are absolutely nonsense. When it comes to TV deals, that could be said of literally every league in the world and it holds no weight whatsoever. 

What has been opted for is a deal based off of scraps. 

Whether we all like it or not, TV has changed football and that isn't going to be reversed. It has meant that legacy fans are less important in all leagues around the world - what has been successful is combining better match day experiences with stronger TV coverage; see Netherlands & Germany as an example. This has meant growth on two fronts; keeping stadia busy and gaining home market and international audiences. Making it more in peoples faces and view points. Social media society dictates that you have to keep fighting for consumers attention; football is no different. 

At a time when we should be looking to expand the audience and ultimately grow the appeal of Scottish football, what we have done is effectively close the doors. We should be encouraging supporters who do not wish to attend or are unable to attend, to engage with the clubs wherever possible - buy club TV packages, be engaged with your team, buy merchandise, go along when you can and yes, there should be a TV deal, but not one which will effectively cut engagement opportunities in the modern world. 

Let's not forget that we are about to enter a period of recession that isn't going away any time soon and neither are inflationary prices going to fall even when things 'hopefully' calm down. Football will become even more of a luxury for people and what will almost certainly happen is that fans will not engage as they could/would have as it will be a case of out of sight, out of mind - unless you want to watch one of the OF away from home each weekend. 

Perhaps the above takes a little bit of more thinking and planning, but what we have opted for is what we have always opted for - the easy way out. 

It's the OF fawning piece in the Daily Record, the Clyde SSB call in, the 20 minute debate about their signing strategy prior to a weekend of challenge cup action. 
It is reductionist, narrow sighted and tedious - the hallmarks of a mentality that will serve nothing other than killing the game. 

 

 

[craigkillie]

Where is this supposed growth in appeal going to come from? You mentioned the Netherlands as an example of supposed international growth, but I don't think Eredivisie even has a UK TV deal any more, because nobody outside of the Netherlands is really that interested. Even Spain, Germany and Italy struggle for international appeal, only England have fully cracked that. Any league outside of those is only ever going to have niche appeal.

What you called "legacy fans" are the people who our game is built on, these are the people that kept clubs afloat during covid, and they'll be the same people you can rely on to come through the gates every week. Gambling their goodwill to chase an imaginary international audience (and I include people in the rest of the UK in that) would be a very bad idea in my opinion.

Edited September 27, 2022 by craigkillie

[Rugster]

11 hours ago, craigkillie said:

It doesn't seem to be universally popular, the smaller clubs seem to get shafted and I think it'll be the same here without pooling of the PPV income.

 

 

 

 

Incidentally, Killie's game against Livingston next month has been moved to a Friday and the club have claimed this will allow it to be streamed in the UK. I'm not sure if they've just misunderstood the rules, or if perhaps that part of the new deal will kick in immediately.

 

 

I know we're just a wee diddy team in a wee diddy league, so the streaming rules as are at the moment may not apply to us (other than 3pm Saturday veto obviously) but we were able to stream our match on Friday night in the UK.

[EK2DK]

Just now, craigkillie said:

Where is this supposed growth in appeal going to come from? You mentioned the Netherlands as an example of supposed international growth, but I don't think Eredivisie even has a UK TV deal any more, because nobody outside of the Netherlands is really that interested. Even Spain, Germany and Italy struggle for international appeal, only England have fully cracked that. Any League outside of those is only ever going to have niche appeal.

What you called "legacy fans" are the people who our game is built on, these are the people that kept clubs afloat during covid, and they'll be the same people you can rely on to come through the gates every week. Gambling their goodwill to chase an imaginary international audience (and I include people in the rest of the UK in that) would be a very bad idea in my opinion.

Eredivise has pretty comprehensive coverage in Scandinavia and strong representation in Germany - it certainly won't be in all markets but is definitely wider than just its home base. 

Agreed re. EPL and that is partly my point. Cormack's comments benchmark EPL which does not carry any weight. 

Whilst I don't want to discount any legacy fans, my point is that rather than actively cutting them off from a chance to see their teams, we should be providing opportunities for engagement. At its most basic level, Scotland it wet, cold and pretty miserable for the majority of the season. Take a club like your own as an example. How many do you take to Pittodrie for a 7.45pm kick-off on a Wednesday night in January? My guess is, not that many - 150/200 in comparison to the 4-5000 home gates you get.

That isn't meant as a criticism btw. Football is expensive, petrol prices are up as is everything else - that isn't going to be reversed when inflation slows. 

We need to be engaging legacy fans by providing better match day experiences in combination with better access to their clubs via club TV or simply a deal which broadcasts much higher volumes of games than this deal with less of a bias toward the OF which there will undoubtedly be. Football needs to fight for peoples attention. That means ease of access for most - making sure that people even in Scotland can engage much more with their teams. Much of society is open source content in comparison to what it used to be and that needs to be embraced for the game to continue to evolve. It's a romantic idea that fans behave as they may well have used to, where football was the only form of entertainment. That is simply not the case now for most - it's either a choice of something else entirely for less money and hassle or consuming other content when football isn't presented in front of you. 

We need to be generating touch points for engagement - not stopping them dead. 

[coprolite]

It's quite telling that absolutely no-one on here has celebrated this new deal or even said they think it's good.

I think "understandable" is about as strong as the praise has got. 

Hopefully by the time this gets renegotiated there's more competition for Sky. Streaming platforms going more mainstream is probably the best hope. 

 

[true_rover]

3 minutes ago, Rugster said:

I know we're just a wee diddy team in a wee diddy league, so the streaming rules as are at the moment may not apply to us (other than 3pm Saturday veto obviously) but we were able to stream our match on Friday night in the UK.

But that wasn't a league game - clearly no single company has exclusive rights to the Challenge Cup.

[Rugster]

3 minutes ago, true_rover said:

But that wasn't a league game - clearly no single company has exclusive rights to the Challenge Cup.

Aha, of course! 

[Clown Job]

The subscription fee for Sky Sports is really not worth it if you’re a fan of Scottish football

 

[Rugster]

Additionally, all top-flight clubs will be able to sell Pay Per View streams within the UK and Ireland of up to five league home games per season, with immediate effect, subject to certain conditions including no matches during blocked hours.

[Clown Job]

 

[Mark Connolly]

1 hour ago, Clown Job said:

 

So all the Celtic v Rangers games, and if they need, fill it out with one of them playing City?