Sky Sports are Taking the Piss Thread

[Gorgie greatness]

2 hours ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

Any recommendations of a good one?

I’m with someone called fire media uk 10 bucks a month & it works well with Scottish games the occasional buffering watching the epl.

[Mark Connolly]

3 hours ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

What a stupid fucking rule. The folk that are going to watch that game will be mostly Celtic or Aberdeen fans. Other than those fans at home watching on TV,  a big chunk will also be at the game.

I fail to see how Hibs vs Hearts eats into that audience too much? Would all Hibs and Hearts fans not actually going to the game instead tune into Aberdeen vs Celtic. I know I most likely wouldn't.

It's a nonsense.

 

I'd be interested to know the exact definition of "direct competition". Knowing Doncaster, it will be a mess, so you could probably get round it by scheduling the kick-off for 5 minutes later

[thisGRAEME]

45 minutes ago, Mark Connolly said:

I'd be interested to know the exact definition of "direct competition". Knowing Doncaster, it will be a mess, so you could probably get round it by scheduling the kick-off for 5 minutes later

The issue is that all fixtures on the final day need to kick off at the same time, so nah, you canny.

[Mark Connolly]

10 minutes ago, thisGRAEME said:

The issue is that all fixtures on the final day need to kick off at the same time, so nah, you canny.

Again, we're told that, but I'm sure Doncaster could engineer a f**k up...

[VincentGuerin]

Its worth remembering here how much power the Old Firm fans have.

If Rangers and Celtic fans (as is conceivable in Germany, for example) just got together and refused to take tickets for away games, we cold have an actual negotiation about what we want as a tv deal and a league etc. Not a hope Sky broadcast empty stadiums for a year.

Yet Rangers and Celtic fans are one of these things:

1) Fine with things as they are

2) Unaware of the power they have

I think it's depressing that we just limp on every year in Scotland.

[SlipperyP]

Let's face it. Sky Sports Scottish Football coverage is basically Old Firm TV, same with the BBC Radio coverage.

Every weekend you will more or less have the arse cheeks on, and the pre match, half-time & full-time analyst is all about what that particular team is doing, hardly anything about their opponents.

FFs lads, we have Ian  Crocker as commentator since 1998 covering all things 'Scottish', he is fucking terrible, down right embarrassing.

I've always had the thought that Sky make us look tin pot, as if they did promoted us to a much better standard,  other broadcasters would come sniffing.  Keep it shite, use the product as a filler, talk down 85% of the league teams, hire fuds to commentate and analyse, they don't give two fucks about it.  It fills 2 hrs for their schedule.

God forbid showing a full house at St Mirren v Kilmarnock game where something is at stake. Folk might start taking an interest.

[Stylish Kid]

What is disappointing too is that due to the nature of The Split®, it is possible for the order of fixtures in both the top and the bottom half to be manipulated to achieve the best "storyline" and therefore coverage that could be marketed to the average viewer 

[AJF]

8 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

Its worth remembering here how much power the Old Firm fans have.

If Rangers and Celtic fans (as is conceivable in Germany, for example) just got together and refused to take tickets for away games, we cold have an actual negotiation about what we want as a tv deal and a league etc. Not a hope Sky broadcast empty stadiums for a year.

Yet Rangers and Celtic fans are one of these things:

1) Fine with things as they are

2) Unaware of the power they have

I think it's depressing that we just limp on every year in Scotland.

Couple of points to pick up with this.

Firstly, it’s not really the responsibility of fans of any club to influence the negotiations of a TV deal, particularly to the detriment of themselves.

Even say we did boycott away games, would anything really change? We are told quite regularly on here that home fans are put off attending matches when Rangers or Celtic come to town due to the unpleasantness of it all. If there was no away support, then wouldn’t home attendances increase as is claimed to cover any shortfall?

Additionally, if Rangers and Celtic fans boycotted away games, wouldn’t that create a higher demand for people to watch the games on TV, potentially increasing Sky’s viewership?

We are in a deal with Sky until god knows when. Should Rangers and Celtic fans just forfeit their opportunity to watch their team play for x amount of years until we are in a position to renegotiate the TV deal?

Rangers as a club have been highly critical of the Sky TV deals and have pushed for change, I just don’t think it’s the fans that will be able to achieve it.

Edited April 28, 2023 by AJF

[VincentGuerin]

14 minutes ago, AJF said:

Couple of points to pick up with this.

1) Firstly, it’s not really the responsibility of fans of any club to influence the negotiations of a TV deal, particularly to the detriment of themselves.

2)Even say we did boycott away games, would anything really change? We are told quite regularly on here that home fans are put off attending matches when Rangers or Celtic come to town due to the unpleasantness of it all. If there was no sway support, then wouldn’t home attendances increase as is claimed to cover any shortfall?

3)Additionally, if Rangers and a Celtic fans boycotted away games, wouldn’t that create a higher demand for people to watch the games on TV, potentially increasing Sky’s viewership?

4) We are in a deal with Sky until god knows when. Should Rangers and Celtic fans just forfeit their opportunity to watch their team play for x amount of years until we are in a position to renegotiate the TV deal?

Rangers as a club have been highly critical of the Sky TV deals and have pushed for change, I just don’t think it’s the fans that will be able to achieve it.

1) Never said it was.

2) Of course it would. A season of Rangers and Celtic playing live games on tv to completely empty away ends would be a huge story and would be a PR embarrassment for Sky and the league (not to mention the lost income to the other ten clubs) to the point where there would be a re-think and at least a token re-shaking of how the tv deal works in terms of what is shown and how the league is promoted. Even if it wasn't officially given as the reason, you'd coincidentally see a wider range of games shown and the OF getting the odd Saturday 3pm away game.

3) Maybe, but probably not by that much. Are 6,000 Rangers fans not going to Perth all going to watch it on Sky? And if so, is 6,000 extra punters a huge deal to Sky? Does it balance out a year of bad publicity and a public demonstration of feeling that they are bad for football?

4) If they think there is an issue, then aye. If not, then no. Protesting about things involves sacrifice. People who strike don't get paid.

Let's be clear. Rangers (or any club) can 'be highly critical' of the tv deal. It means absolutely f**k all. What will make a difference is people not going to the games and/or not paying Sky for the coverage. Nothing else. You're either bothered enough to do those things or you're not.

Edited April 28, 2023 by VincentGuerin

[AJF]

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

1) Never said it was.

2) Of course it would. A season of Rangers and Celtic playing live games on tv to completely empty away ends would be a huge story and would be a PR embarrassment for Sky and the league (not to mention the lost income to the other ten clubs) to the point where there would be a re-think and at least a token re-shaking of how the tv deal works in terms of what is shown and how the league is promoted. Even if it wasn't officially given as the reason, you'd coincidentally see a wider range of games shown and the OF getting the odd Saturday 3pm away game.

3) Maybe, but probably not by that much. Are 6,000 Rangers fans not going to Perth all going to watch it on Sky? And if so, is 6,000 extra punters a huge deal to Sky?

4) If they think there is an issue, then aye. If not, then no. Protesting about things involves sacrifice. People who strike don't get paid.

Let's be clear. Rangers (or any club) can 'be highly critical' of the tv deal. It means absolutely f**k all. What will make a difference is people not going to the games and/or not paying Sky for the coverage. Nothing else. You're either bothered enough to do those things or you're not.

This all hinges on sky actually giving a f**k about showing partly empty stadiums. Do they? If viewership remained at similar levels, would they bother?

It then comes onto the next point about it being an embarrassment for the league which would spur them on to take action. This should already be happening. Clubs are acutely aware of fan feeling towards the TV deal. Why would it take a boycott for them to want better than we currently have?

I’m not sure if all fans not attending an away game would watch it on sky, but you’d bet a fair chunk of them would, bringing me back to my earlier point regarding Sky not caring about empty stadiums if it’s not impacting their bottom line.

I personally know all about striking and the sacrifice it brings. However we are locked into a multi year deal and due to the points I’ve already mentioned, I’m not sure a boycott would hold the same power over Sky if they aren’t being impacted financially.

It’s just an odd narrative to me, as it seems you are blaming Rangers and Celtic fans for inaction while absolving everyone else of the same blame.

[gannonball]

19 minutes ago, AJF said:

This all hinges on sky actually giving a f**k about showing partly empty stadiums. Do they? If viewership remained at similar levels, would they bother?

 

 

Would agree with this this they can't be arsed at checking the graphics are right for games or even filling out their game quota so I would imagine it's not going to be much of a deal for them.

[IrishBhoy]

It shouldn’t fall on the fans of any club to start boycotting games or staging protests. The SPFL should stop acting like a Bowling club committee and should have put the TV deal out to tender instead of letting Sky tie us in to a terrible deal for the next 6 years. It’s not like there wasn’t already a plethora of evidence that Sky couldn’t give a monkeys about the promotion of the league on their platforms, they haven’t shown their full quota for at least the past 2 seasons. The Women’s Premier League gets pushed far more by Sky across their channels than the SPFL does, they get more air time on the propaganda channel that is Sky Sports News, there is adverts across their full platform advertising upcoming WPL games featuring players and on occasion they have 2+ games over a weekend. 
 

Now no one can tell me that there is more people watching Reading v Arsenal Women than would watch the Edinburgh Derby, so the reason for this imbalance isn’t purely down to viewership numbers. The only conclusion you can come to is that the SPFL go in to these negotiations like Del Boy and Rodney going to a meeting with Jeff Bezos. They’ve allowed Sky to demean the league over the last couple of seasons, this current one especially, and it seems the SPFL couldn’t care less. Why is there not stipulations in the contract that say a certain number of matches get held back for post-split, and if they want to show the trophy day, OF dead rubbers etc., they can, but they also must choose games from outwith the OF I.e relegation 6 pointers, last day matches for European places, Edinburgh derby etc. A sensible solution would be to end the 4 game quota from each ground at MD33, and the clubs agree to allow Sky to broadcast whatever games they choose post-split making sure that all angles of the league get covered and Sky actually bother their arse to promote the games in what should be the most exciting part of the season. 

[Shuggie_Murray7]

1 hour ago, Stylish Kid said:

What is disappointing too is that due to the nature of The Split®, it is possible for the order of fixtures in both the top and the bottom half to be manipulated to achieve the best "storyline" and therefore coverage that could be marketed to the average viewer 

This is my main gripe.

You reach the split - top 6, bottom 6 - you can actually pick which fixtures make sense in whichever slot you like to make the story of the title/Europe chase/relegation battle a thriller.

I'm not suggesting manipulating the fixtures to hand a certain team a title or to relegate someone. But you can sure-as-shit schedule them and make them as interesting as you possibly can - within the boundaries of sporting integrity - and screen all the interesting matches and get viewers actually interested.

But no, we are served up five dead rubbers and absolutely no coverage of anything else even remotely interesting.

It's embarrassing. Is there anohter league in Europe that would accept such a shoddy TV deal?

[kingjoey]

8 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said:

This is my main gripe.

You reach the split - top 6, bottom 6 - you can actually pick which fixtures make sense in whichever slot you like to make the story of the title/Europe chase/relegation battle a thriller.

I'm not suggesting manipulating the fixtures to hand a certain team a title or to relegate someone. But you can sure-as-shit schedule them and make them as interesting as you possibly can - within the boundaries of sporting integrity - and screen all the interesting matches and get viewers actually interested.

But no, we are served up five dead rubbers and absolutely no coverage of anything else even remotely interesting.

It's embarrassing. Is there anohter league in Europe that would accept such a shoddy TV deal?

Is there another league in Europe that is run for two clubs, neither of which sees themselves as belonging to that particular country?

Edited April 28, 2023 by kingjoey

[realmadrid]

2 hours ago, IrishBhoy said:

A sensible solution would be to end the 4 game quota from each ground 

Id just stop at that 

With 48 games and the 4 game quota its going to be almost impossible for Sky to get to game 48 if they show one of the rest v Old firm every week for the first 33 game days and then suddenly want to show something else at the end of the season.

They keep back the other games at Celtic Park and Ibrox just in case it goes to the last day or weeks and that can be seen this season.

Which teams have not had their 4 home game allocation used this season?

From memory Saints have just had the two visits from Celtic and one from Rangers covered this season. As usual no away game coverage at all.

 

[Dons_1988]

2 hours ago, gannonball said:

Would agree with this this they can't be arsed at checking the graphics are right for games or even filling out their game quota so I would imagine it's not going to be much of a deal for them.

Anyone in media will tell you that a half empty stadium completely changes the spectacle from a tv perspective. 

Sky don’t care much but they aren’t just donating to the Scottish game, they want something passable as their filler. Celtic going 4-0 up in 30 minutes at Kilmarnock and playing out a training match for the remaining 60 with absolutely no noise or atmosphere would make their investment a dreadful one. 

[gannonball]

6 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Anyone in media will tell you that a half empty stadium completely changes the spectacle from a tv perspective. 

Sky don’t care much but they aren’t just donating to the Scottish game, they want something passable as their filler. Celtic going 4-0 up in 30 minutes at Kilmarnock and playing out a training match for the remaining 60 with absolutely no noise or atmosphere would make their investment a dreadful one. 

I agree I totally went off watching football during covid with closed door games but I genuinely think Sky aren't that arsed about showing our game to have a major opinion on away crowds. We're just a cheap filler for them.

[IrishBhoy]

1 minute ago, realmadrid said:

Which teams have not had their 4 home game allocation used this season?

From memory Saints have just had the two visits from Celtic and one from Rangers covered this season. As usual no away game coverage at all.

 

Agree with your point about the 4 home game quota, but it sounds like this is something that comes from the clubs rather than Sky in order to protect the gate. If there was a more even distribution of games shown across the league rather than A.N. Diddy v OF then it wouldn’t be an issue the clubs would need to worry about. 
 

St Mirren have had 3 as well. 2x Celtic and 1x Rangers, and no away games covered. Infact I read a stat on Twitter that Sky haven’t shown a St Mirren away game on TV since we played Dunfermline in 2011. It’s scandalous. The complete disregard of the relegation battle this season has actually made me quite angry. No top 6 matches not involving the OF either and the Edinburgh derby ignored again. What other league would stand for such blatant disregard of 10 of the 12 teams. How do they ever expect to build a profile in the UK if the only games they show are Celtics £60M team of internationals putting 4 past Motherwell or St Mirren. If this league was marketed correctly you could build a narrative around most of these post split matches, with the relegation fight and battle for European places still very much alive. Instead we’ve got Celtic officially winning the league, Celtic lifting the trophy, and a couple of dead rubbers involving Rangers. 
 

The idiocy of the SPFL jumping into a contract till 2029 still irks me too. How people watch TV is changing rapidly, and we’ve already got streaming sites like DAZN looking for UK content, Discovery + streaming snooker, Amazon Prime showing football and tennis. Why on earth would you tie yourself down until 2029 with a mainstream subscription service when there is the possibility of having all these streaming sites looking for content, and more than likely others who will appear out the woodwork as the years go by. There was no need to extend the contract early and Sky have played the SPFL like a fiddle by locking them in for that length of time. 

[Big Pussy]

28 minutes ago, realmadrid said:

Id just stop at that 

With 48 games and the 4 game quota its going to be almost impossible for Sky to get to game 48 if they show one of the rest v Old firm every week for the first 33 game days and then suddenly want to show something else at the end of the season.

They keep back the other games at Celtic Park and Ibrox just in case it goes to the last day or weeks and that can be seen this season.

Which teams have not had their 4 home game allocation used this season?

From memory Saints have just had the two visits from Celtic and one from Rangers covered this season. As usual no away game coverage at all.

 

Ditto.

Last St. Mirren away league game to be covered by Sky was TWELVE years ago.

[realmadrid]

1 minute ago, IrishBhoy said:

Agree with your point about the 4 home game quota, but it sounds like this is something that comes from the clubs rather than Sky in order to protect the gate. If there was a more even distribution of games shown across the league rather than A.N. Diddy v OF then it wouldn’t be an issue the clubs would need to worry about. 

You can guarantee the 4 game quota came from 2 teams that have a "home support" made up of people who need to come to games on ferries etc. The loss in season ticket money to them if all games were open to them is also to much and would be unfair.

There has to be some limit or Sky would just apply for 72 games (2 per weekend when the old firm are playing another team and 1 when playing each other) and we would get 19 home Rangers games 19 home Celtic games , each top 6 other would get 4 home games and the rest 3 with all being against the old firm.