Jump to content

Sky Sports Are Taking The Piss Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, the jambo-rocker said:

SPFL: "We need more money in Scottish football!"

Also SPFL: "Lets take the first offer we get!"

What a fucking shambles. 

Or lets reject it, hope for more from some mystery company and end up with less for pissing sky off?  Theres no money anywhere in the country so I can completely see why the clubs went down the guaranteed dosh route. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Hoose Rice said:

Or lets reject it, hope for more from some mystery company and end up with less for pissing sky off?  Theres no money anywhere in the country so I can completely see why the clubs went down the guaranteed dosh route. 

While I cannot claim to know a single thing about tv, how the deals are done, what it entails etc but I've seen loads "put it to tender" stuff on the internet, like it's as simple as that. I'm sure they've had off the record type chats with other potential broadcasters and found out they're not interested or not going to be remotely in same ball park. Hence this deal or no deal position.

The one issue I can see why people are challenging is the aspect of the deal that doesn't allow clubs to stream games that Sky aren't interested in showing anyway. Seems a step to far?

 

It's takes like that... What are they going to do? Put it to a fans fucking vote? The football clubs are businesses owned by private individuals.

 

Edited by SJFCtheTeamForMe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, SJFCtheTeamForMe said:

While I cannot claim to know a single thing about tv, how the deals are done, what it entails etc but I've seen loads "put it to tender" stuff on the internet, like it's as simple as that. I'm sure they've had off the record type chats with other potential broadcasters and found out they're not interested or not going to be remotely in same ball park. Hence this deal or no deal position.

The one issue I can see why people are challenging is the aspect of the deal that doesn't allow clubs to stream games that Sky aren't interested in showing anyway. Seems a step to far?

 

It's takes like that... What are they going to do? Put it to a fans fucking vote? The football clubs are businesses owned by private individuals.

 

Sky/BT don't allow English clubs to stream games not shown either and wouldn't expect them to want to go down that route.  Most games are 3pm Saturday not on Sky anyway and the clubs would rather have the supporters buying season tickets to go to the games than subscribe to games Sky dont want. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hoose Rice said:

Or lets reject it, hope for more from some mystery company and end up with less for pissing sky off?  Theres no money anywhere in the country so I can completely see why the clubs went down the guaranteed dosh route. 

Can't really argue alot with what @SJFC_theteamformesaid, although what I would say if the fans wouldn't have minded some input. I don't think we're all keen on sky or the amounts we're paying for the packages, even if there isn't a lot else out there. I'm not saying there's an easy answer but it was certainly worth a conversation.

 

On top of that. I never said reject it. I don't even think we should have taking something so quickly when we have nearly 3 years on our deal to go. Some clubs wouldn't mind the option of selling PPV even on top of the sell outs they have, but with the infrastructure clubs have on top of it, we've definitely jumped the gun here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why they are being cautious given what happened with Setanta and wanting stability after Covid. BT are also pretty much pulling out of sport and handing it to another company. 
I hate the way Sky portrays our game but there isn’t much else in town. Add in the rise of IPTV which has been accelerated by Skys greed amongst others it probably makes sense to stick rather than twist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like this deal is broadly decent news for regular matchgoing fans of clubs other than Celtic or Rangers in that it's long-term secure income for our clubs from a company with decent production values. The chances of a Setanta repeat are much slimmer and clubs can plan ahead a lot more. Hopefully there's been a bit more pressure put on to Sky to give it a bit of a higher billing and to do more stuff around promoting all the clubs, we'll wait and see but I'm not holding my breath.

There will be more games on TV to watch, which is good because there aren't quite enough just now, but there won't be so many that kick-off times are all over the place. Have a feeling the PPV stuff will be a bit of a pain in the arse if clubs randomly shift around kick-off times just to fit it in, but hopefully they mainly focus on the existing midweeks and festive games rather than moving too many Saturday afternoon ones. I would personally have preferred not to have that because I think it'll ultimately lead to Celtic and Rangers being able to make even more money by retaining the income from their home PPV games.

It's probably bad news for the TV fans who want to watch as many games as possible, but I think the match going fans should always be prioritised over them anyway. Ultimately the people punting money through the gates every week, spending in the club shop and so on are more important than these mythical neutrals that want to watch 100+ games a season but don't want to actually go to any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, the jambo-rocker said:

Can't really argue alot with what @SJFC_theteamformesaid, although what I would say if the fans wouldn't have minded some input. I don't think we're all keen on sky or the amounts we're paying for the packages, even if there isn't a lot else out there. I'm not saying there's an easy answer but it was certainly worth a conversation.

 

On top of that. I never said reject it. I don't even think we should have taking something so quickly when we have nearly 3 years on our deal to go. Some clubs wouldn't mind the option of selling PPV even on top of the sell outs they have, but with the infrastructure clubs have on top of it, we've definitely jumped the gun here.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've just gone through a very public informal "tender" where the SPFL have made it very clear that the rights are getting renewed soon and how much you'd have to pay to get them. The idea that turning this into a big formal process would make any difference is a bit weird to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky/BT don't allow English clubs to stream games not shown either and wouldn't expect them to want to go down that route.  Most games are 3pm Saturday not on Sky anyway and the clubs would rather have the supporters buying season tickets to go to the games than subscribe to games Sky dont want. 

As far as I’m aware, Sky let EFL clubs stream games which aren’t Saturday 3pm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes 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 think this is probably accurate. Sky won't want to be hanging around while the SPFL goes around seeing if they can get better deal elsewhere. As someone said, there will have been informal chats with other potential parties.

Given the state of the economy, this might end up not looking too bad a deal.

What will be intesting is the secondary package and how/if that works. Maybe some other broadcasters might see an opening there at low cost.

Equally, I wonder if Sky might be a bit more clever with the rights this time. As Premier did, could Sky 'sub let' as such some of the rights to the less appealing games? For example, Sky produce and show on one of their channels, say Motherwell v St Johnstone, but BBC Scotland or Quest or someone buys the rights to be able to show the game on free to air? 

I also wonder if somewhere in there there is a way Sky could stream other games directly yo Skygo or something as opposed to clubs streaming games. If the SPFL is willing to open up to being a bit of a Co partner in dome test scenarios with Sky, we might just be able to offer something different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As far as I’m aware, Sky let EFL clubs stream games which aren’t Saturday 3pm.

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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, lubo_blaha said:


As far as I’m aware, Sky let EFL clubs stream games which aren’t Saturday 3pm.

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

It's pretty clear given that the SPFL had to get the agreement of Sky to do it in the last two seasons.

Not really. Once an agreement is in force, if either party wishes to change it then it needs the agreement of the other regardless of who inserted the clause(s) in question. 

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...