Sky Sports are Taking the Piss Thread

[craigkillie]

5 hours ago, Handsome John said:

You missed out the earlier part from your post, but I’ll paste it here for you…

“The blame for that lies with the clubs, who are ultimately responsible for how little funding is available to the entity of the SPFL, an operation that runs with a handful of employees. I'm certainly not aware of Motherwell making a concerted effort to change that in the half a decade that he worked there, indeed they barely made any effort to engage with or promote the actual media content the SPFL did produce.”

There is one word (he) in that whole paragraph that relates to Grant, the rest is a clear go at the club or just poorly worded on your part. 

You’ve had digs at “the Motherwell media team” in the recent past and clearly know that Russell’s no longer part of it so why not name him specifically rather than the two more junior staff left behind? 

I really don't know what more to say about this. The entire starting off point for the whole conversation was a tweet by Grant Russell, so I don't think anyone could be left in any doubt whatsoever that the point I was making related to. I have no idea who the other staff still working on Motherwell's media team are, the only ones I was aware of were Russell and his partner who both moved down to West Ham. Clearly you've shown that the remaining members of the team appear to be more committed to a collective effort than was the case in previous years, which again suggests that the issue in that respect was the person in charge.

All of the clubs are to blame, and that does include Motherwell. If the discussion was about a former Dundee United employee then I'd have namechecked that club in the post, but it wasn't.

[DukDukGoose]

11 hours ago, craigkillie said:

I really don't know what more to say about this. The entire starting off point for the whole conversation was a tweet by Grant Russell, so I don't think anyone could be left in any doubt whatsoever that the point I was making related to. I have no idea who the other staff still working on Motherwell's media team are, the only ones I was aware of were Russell and his partner who both moved down to West Ham. Clearly you've shown that the remaining members of the team appear to be more committed to a collective effort than was the case in previous years, which again suggests that the issue in that respect was the person in charge.

All of the clubs are to blame, and that does include Motherwell. If the discussion was about a former Dundee United employee then I'd have namechecked that club in the post, but it wasn't.

He's literally proved your point. 

Probably best you guys leave it there.

[craigkillie]

The SPFL's recent financial statement is interesting in terms of laying out exactly how much money the clubs retain and how much is left behind for the SPFL to do things like marketing, digital and so on.

https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-record-financial-results

The total turnover of the SPFL is £39.5m, and it looks as though of that £32.5m has been paid out to clubs via prize money (combining the totals for the cinch leagues and the Premier Sports Cup). That means the total operating costs of the SPFL must be in the region of £7m - perhaps slightly less if they retain anything as a sort of "rainy day fund", though based on what happened in 2020 I'd guess that they don't.

That £7m has to pay for staff salaries, all advertising and marketing, a website, all their digital and video content and staff travel to matches (including helicopters for trophy days!) and freelance fees for the folk that write stuff for their website. I'd also guess it will include pyramid payments to relegated clubs and probably enormous fees to the SFA to cover referees. I can't imagine there is loads left over to fund the sort of "proper" media and marketing that others have spoken about.

Hopefully the extra income being generated, and the fact it was explicitly recommended in the Deloitte report, can convince clubs that they do need to hire folk to do this sort of stuff properly, but it's also entirely possible that short-term greed on the clubs' side will continue to be the order of the day.

[kenrobell]

The SPFL's recent financial statement is interesting in terms of laying out exactly how much money the clubs retain and how much is left behind for the SPFL to do things like marketing, digital and so on.
https://spfl.co.uk/news/press-release-record-financial-results

The total turnover of the SPFL is £39.5m, and it looks as though of that £32.5m has been paid out to clubs via prize money (combining the totals for the cinch leagues and the Premier Sports Cup). That means the total operating costs of the SPFL must be in the region of £7m - perhaps slightly less if they retain anything as a sort of "rainy day fund", though based on what happened in 2020 I'd guess that they don't.
That £7m has to pay for staff salaries, all advertising and marketing, a website, all their digital and video content and staff travel to matches (including helicopters for trophy days!) and freelance fees for the folk that write stuff for their website. I'd also guess it will include pyramid payments to relegated clubs and probably enormous fees to the SFA to cover referees. I can't imagine there is loads left over to fund the sort of "proper" media and marketing that others have spoken about.
Hopefully the extra income being generated, and the fact it was explicitly recommended in the Deloitte report, can convince clubs that they do need to hire folk to do this sort of stuff properly, but it's also entirely possible that short-term greed on the clubs' side will continue to be the order of the day.

Personally I think Doncaster get paid way too much I heard 230 k a year that’s more than prize money in div 3

[bennett]

1 minute ago, kenrobell said:

Personally I think Doncaster get paid way too much I heard 230 k a year that’s more than prize money in div 3

2 years ago the Herald claimed he was earning just under £400k.

 

 

[kenrobell]

2 years ago the Herald claimed he was earning just under £400k.
 
 

He’s not worth that considering he has a team that’s delegated if he wants more it should be a basic with bonuses tied in if we beat certain targets financially

[Clown Job]

 

[craigkillie]

I think he is surely talking out of his arse here. If the technology to separate the broadcasts doesn't exist for TV companies, they simply won't be able to broadcast games at all. They can't just breach the UEFA agreement on a technicality.

It's definitely possible to geoblock streaming within the constituent parts of the UK - Scottish clubs had to block PPV broadcasts to England last season.

[craigkillie]

I don't mean to labour the point, but it's a continuation of some ongoing intellectual dishonesty on his part regarding SPFL TV deals.

His biggest criticism of the original Sky deal was that the SPFL didn't sell a secondary rights package, and that Sky were the exclusive broadcaster.

 

 

The SPFL agree a new deal which does have secondary rights by way of allowing clubs to sell PPV for 5 home games per season. This lifts the restriction on selling another 60 games - in other words takes them off his metaphorical shelf. That means that the total number of Premiership games now available for broadcast is 108 (the 48 in the current Sky deal, plus 60 on PPV).

A little bit of elementary maths allows you to make a quick calculation that there are 228 Premiership matches every season. We now have 108 of them off the shelf, and 120 "on the shelf". The magic "on the shelf" percentage for the Premiership is now 53%, barely different from the Premier League (his employers' league) which he was extolling the virtues of.

And that's only for the existing deal - once we get to 2023/24, Sky actually have the rights for 60 live games (with the potential for this to be increased - there are rumours the SPFL actually have a clause allowing them to sell extras to other broadcasters if Sky don't show them, but those are unconfirmed). That means that there will be 120 for sale (60 Sky + 60 TV), leaving exactly 47% on the shelf. In other words, the proportion of games being sold is identical to the Premier League figure he seemed happy with.

So you'd think that would satisfy him in terms of the number of games in the new TV deal, even if he has criticisms about other aspects (mainly boring stuff I personally don't care about but others might). However, you'd be wrong.

 

 

The 47% of Premier League games are just on the shelf, which he was absolutely fine with in August, but after the SPFL do the deal, their 47% are "imprisoned", which is not OK.

People lap this up because they are a captive audience, they want to dislike everything the SPFL do, so they don't bother to actually engage their brains on it. For all his faults, he is not an idiot, and he is using this to build his own reputation as some sort of marketing guru. His views are based on shifting sands, like all true shock jocks his only goal is to complain from the sidelines with whatever people want to hear.

[The Master]

12 hours ago, Clown Job said:

 

I must have imagined the restrictions last season that meant people in England (where there was a blackout) couldn't watch Saturday 3pm games from Scotland (where there wasn't a blackout) via PPV.

The "whether it likes it or not" is wrong as well. If Scotland has a blackout, and the SFA can demonstrate that The FA is allowing broadcasts into Scotland on Saturdays from 2.45pm-5.15pm, it can raise an objection with UEFA who can take action. 

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

Racism is vile and the clip is horrendous from Tannadice midweek but Sky sports are showing the incident on Sky Sports news with the audio cut out. 

Wtf is the point in showing the clip then?! Without being able to hear the racist remarks the clip is pointless!

[Jacky1990]

4 hours ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Racism is vile and the clip is horrendous from Tannadice midweek but Sky sports are showing the incident on Sky Sports news with the audio cut out. 

Wtf is the point in showing the clip then?! Without being able to hear the racist remarks the clip is pointless!

There is surely some rule prohibiting them from airing racist/homophobic/sexist language on their broadcasts, or any language deemed "offensive" for that manner including swearing, etc.

I'd be far more surprised if they aired the audio.

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

49 minutes ago, Jacky1990 said:

There is surely some rule prohibiting them from airing racist/homophobic/sexist language on their broadcasts, or any language deemed "offensive" for that manner including swearing, etc.

I'd be far more surprised if they aired the audio.

Wasn't that I was expecting them to air the audio. It's was more airing the video without the audio is effectively showing absolutely nothing and serves absolutely no purpose. It was just daft. 

They showed video of a Hibs player catching a ball from the crowd and handing it to a United player for a throw in with multiple bleeping of the audio

If they show it again you'll see what I mean. They could have shown absolutely any video. It didn't serve any purpose.

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by SJFCtheTeamForMe

[Clown Job]

 

[johnnydun]

5 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

 

Needs more OF games imo.

[GNU_Linux]

Needs more OF games imo.

Time to get the B teams on Sky imo.

[Moomintroll]

OK, so Livi v Celtic is on at 7:30 tomorrow night now according to Sky.

[SJFCtheTeamForMe]

On 28/10/2022 at 11:04, Clown Job said:

 

I would imagine a direct result in the cost of living. Sky is a luxury. 

I love having sky sports as it's pretty much all I watch but if I was starting to struggle to feed a family (I don't have one) or pay the bills its one of the first things you'd cut back on.

Edited October 29, 2022 by SJFCtheTeamForMe

[Connor7]

Full premiership card of fixtures mid-week. Not one game will be shown live. English Carabao cup games will be televised instead.

[Swami]