gannonball Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 Can you really embarrass Sky anymore given they employed Charlie Nicholas for decades? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: The clubs couldn’t give a shit. That is well established, and as long as people keep moaning on sites like this but continue to subscribe and watch then they won’t give a shit. That’s the point. In 2012 sevco would have been an SPL side if fans hadn’t withheld their money. The clubs wanted the path of least financial resistance and that was to maintain the status quo regardless of the circumstance. Fans can absolutely have an impact if there’s enough will and organisation. I wholeheartedly agree that fans have a voice and can make an impact (I’ve seen it at my own club - the protests against the tour of Australia). I’m not saying fans can’t take action, and maybe you are partly right that the fact it is being branded a burden that OF fans should carry grates on me, but I still believe what I said in that I really don’t think it’ll change anything if Sky are unaffected financially. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggie_Murray7 Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 The OF fans in this thread appear to be being intentionally obtuse so as to not accept that they alone have the single largest platform - a massively larger platform than any other fan base in Scotland throughout the entire season - to make a difference. I think almost everyone agrees that the sole blame lies with the league bosses and the clubs. It has done for decades. The point being made is that, with clubs unwilling to raise their own concerns about the deal, the onus then falls onto the paying customer - the fan, of every club. With the OF having the largest fan bases, many times over on any other Scottish team, and being on TV every single weekend of the season, that puts them in prime position to make a difference. But they won't, because then they'd have accept that their clubs do in fact get preferential treatment from the broadcasters and that that is a major contributing factor in us ending up with a sham of a TV deal that is solely centred around those two clubs alone. The OF supporters in this thread appear to be wilfully misunderstanding the points being made. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 26 minutes ago, AJF said: I wholeheartedly agree that fans have a voice and can make an impact (I’ve seen it at my own club - the protests against the tour of Australia). I’m not saying fans can’t take action, and maybe you are partly right that the fact it is being branded a burden that OF fans should carry grates on me, but I still believe what I said in that I really don’t think it’ll change anything if Sky are unaffected financially. You could combine it with a financial one I.e don’t subscribe. I certainly don’t. Not saying you do but if people cancelled en masse to hit sky and sent a message to the clubs by mass boycotting, things would change. Simple as that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 30 minutes ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said: The OF fans in this thread appear to be being intentionally obtuse so as to not accept that they alone have the single largest platform - a massively larger platform than any other fan base in Scotland throughout the entire season - to make a difference. I think almost everyone agrees that the sole blame lies with the league bosses and the clubs. It has done for decades. The point being made is that, with clubs unwilling to raise their own concerns about the deal, the onus then falls onto the paying customer - the fan, of every club. With the OF having the largest fan bases, many times over on any other Scottish team, and being on TV every single weekend of the season, that puts them in prime position to make a difference. But they won't, because then they'd have accept that their clubs do in fact get preferential treatment from the broadcasters and that that is a major contributing factor in us ending up with a sham of a TV deal that is solely centred around those two clubs alone. The OF supporters in this thread appear to be wilfully misunderstanding the points being made. I can’t speak for Celtic, but Rangers as a club opposed this sky deal, to the extent they voted against it and the remaining SPFL clubs voted through an emergency rule change that would allow them to sign off on the Sky deal without Rangers’ agreement. So my club actually has already raised concerns regarding the Sky TV deal and actively voted and campaigned against it. So the preferential treatment line is moot considering we didn’t want this deal. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dons_1988 Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 (edited) 4 minutes ago, AJF said: I can’t speak for Celtic, but Rangers as a club opposed this sky deal, to the extent they voted against it and the remaining SPFL clubs voted through an emergency rule change that would allow them to sign off on the Sky deal without Rangers’ agreement. So my club actually has already raised concerns regarding the Sky TV deal and actively voted and campaigned against it. So the preferential treatment line is moot considering we didn’t want this deal. Come on now, the fact rangers didn’t like the specific terms (let’s say that in good faith and not suggest they were deliberately obstructive to pursue a vandetta, because they wouldn’t, would they?) does not override the fact the entire deal is built around two clubs. Edited April 28, 2023 by Dons_1988 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJF Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said: Come on now, the fact rangers didn’t like the specific terms (let’s say that in good faith and not suggest they were deliberately obstructive to pursue a vandetta, because they wouldn’t, would they?) does not override the fact the entire deal is built around two clubs. I never intended to deny that the deal was built around two clubs, more contesting the suggestion that either club wouldn’t oppose it because they’d have to accept that they get preferential treatment (because Rangers did oppose it). I’m not at all suggesting there is parity between Rangers and Celtic compared to the other clubs. Edited April 28, 2023 by AJF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloPerth Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 1 hour ago, Shuggie_Murray7 said: The OF fans in this thread appear to be being intentionally obtuse so as to not accept that they alone have the single largest platform - a massively larger platform than any other fan base in Scotland throughout the entire season - to make a difference. I think almost everyone agrees that the sole blame lies with the league bosses and the clubs. It has done for decades. The point being made is that, with clubs unwilling to raise their own concerns about the deal, the onus then falls onto the paying customer - the fan, of every club. With the OF having the largest fan bases, many times over on any other Scottish team, and being on TV every single weekend of the season, that puts them in prime position to make a difference. But they won't, because then they'd have accept that their clubs do in fact get preferential treatment from the broadcasters and that that is a major contributing factor in us ending up with a sham of a TV deal that is solely centred around those two clubs alone. The OF supporters in this thread appear to be wilfully misunderstanding the points being made. I’m the least old firm sympathiser in the world, but I think your argument sounds bonkers. I feel I must be picking you up wrongly. Are you saying that our TV deal is weighted massively in favour of the OF clubs in terms of coverage, but OF fans should lead the protest against it because there are far more of them?? Why would they? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molotov Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 1 hour ago, AJF said: I wholeheartedly agree that fans have a voice and can make an impact (I’ve seen it at my own club - the protests against the tour of Australia). How did these protests go? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VincentGuerin Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 1 hour ago, PauloPerth said: I’m the least old firm sympathiser in the world, but I think your argument sounds bonkers. I feel I must be picking you up wrongly. Are you saying that our TV deal is weighted massively in favour of the OF clubs in terms of coverage, but OF fans should lead the protest against it because there are far more of them?? Why would they? Because match-going OF fans tell us they dislike the deal as much as anyone else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloPerth Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 16 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said: Because match-going OF fans tell us they dislike the deal as much as anyone else. Why’s that, because of all the changed kick off times? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomGuy. Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 17 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. This. They could also help lower ticket prices (the amount they get charged for cup games at Hampden is genuinely insane) but they wont. Theyd happily sell out a stadium while getting charged £60 a head. Clubs/authorities are absolutely the ones in the wrong charging the extortionate amounts but fucking hell, at what point will OF fans actually decide enoughs enough and theyll no longer accept being taken for a ride and actually stand up for themselves? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gannonball Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, PauloPerth said: Why’s that, because of all the changed kick off times? That would be a main driver. Plus even though it makes it easier for the of* home/armchair fan it's ridiculous to show one of us against a lower end team instead of a derby or 3rd/4th place match etc. I appreciate it will most likely get more viewers but it doesn't promote our game overall long term and shows where there is most likely to be tension etc. We don't get enough cash off broadcasters for them to be dictating everything so clauses and concessions should be in place should they want to move a game. Edited April 28, 2023 by gannonball 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 9 hours ago, IrishBhoy said: 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. I don't understand this obsession with it not formally going out to tender. It was well known publicly that the rights were up for renewal, and the SPFL leaked enough stories via friendly journalists about what they wanted out of it. They will have sounded out other broadcasters, and if any of them were serious about bidding for it then they would have done. There aren't really many viable candidates out there though, you'd have to be taking another Setanta-style risk on a debt-ridden cowboy operation like DAZN. Remember that when the previous deal was agreed, there were quite a few people raging that it wasn't offered to "Eleven Sports", and you only have to see what happened to them within a couple of years. It's clear that the SPFL did extract several concessions from Sky as part of the new deal. From 2024 onwards it has a 6 game quota for each ground, and has a minimum number of games which are required to be broadcast. It also has two additional 10 game packages which Sky has first refusal on, but which can be sold to other broadcasters if Sky don't take them. It also allowed an immediate change to the rules regarding PPV matches for the final two years of the existing deal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJFCtheTeamForMe Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 3 hours ago, craigkillie said: I don't understand this obsession with it not formally going out to tender. It was well known publicly that the rights were up for renewal, and the SPFL leaked enough stories via friendly journalists about what they wanted out of it. They will have sounded out other broadcasters, and if any of them were serious about bidding for it then they would have done. There aren't really many viable candidates out there though, you'd have to be taking another Setanta-style risk on a debt-ridden cowboy operation like DAZN. Remember that when the previous deal was agreed, there were quite a few people raging that it wasn't offered to "Eleven Sports", and you only have to see what happened to them within a couple of years. It's clear that the SPFL did extract several concessions from Sky as part of the new deal. From 2024 onwards it has a 6 game quota for each ground, and has a minimum number of games which are required to be broadcast. It also has two additional 10 game packages which Sky has first refusal on, but which can be sold to other broadcasters if Sky don't take them. It also allowed an immediate change to the rules regarding PPV matches for the final two years of the existing deal. Agree re the official tender obsession. What broadcaster was going to offer more than Sky? No one. The very likely reason it didn't go out to tender was because the SPFL knew there was no real other interest, at least not up to the level of the current deal. If that went to tender Sky would have gained the rights but with less concessions than they ended up giving. Who's actually going to buy those other packages? BBC would only buy if it's going cheap. Viaplay will be only interested if its consistently Rangers and Celtic in the package - which it won't be. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 28, 2023 Share Posted April 28, 2023 Viaplay show the League Cup group stages. They don't have a lot of football on, so I could definitely see them taking on those extra games if it's got the likes of Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen involved. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted April 30, 2023 Share Posted April 30, 2023 On 03/04/2023 at 20:49, The Master said: That’s not something Sky do, except for a league’s final day. I'm very confused because Sky Sports appear to be showing Fulham v Man City and Bayern Munich v Hertha Berlin simultaneously right now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Master Posted April 30, 2023 Share Posted April 30, 2023 1 hour ago, craigkillie said: I'm very confused because Sky Sports appear to be showing Fulham v Man City and Bayern Munich v Hertha Berlin simultaneously right now. I must have missed Bayern Munich and Hertha Berlin joining a UK-based league. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherrif John Bunnell Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Sky's coverage is somehow about to get even more obnoxious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSJ.84 Posted June 5, 2023 Share Posted June 5, 2023 Pinched from SPFLMediawatch on twitter, looks like the playoffs have a new twist to them… 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.