SPFL Review

[Chefki Kuqi]

8 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

No the problem is that we share a media market with England and have to schedule or TV fixtures around their games.

For example Sky paid for 48 live games last season. They did not show 48 games.

Independence and closing our TV market to England is the only way we can grow.. Our value per game is in the top 10 in Europe but we can't show more games because of our current position in the UK and the TV market.

I had heard something about our value per game being quite high, or something similar. It's obviously an intriguing statistic, where is it from if you don't mind me asking? 

[DukDukGoose]

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Aye all these folk would be raging if it was Rangers and Celtic doing this.

For them it isn't Narrow Self interest when their clubs do it.

I mean, we're probably just happy enough to actually see what's proposed and then get upset about it.

BBC seems to think it's about having ambitions for the SPFL to actually market itself properly. Folk on here have taken that to mean reducing the amount of league clubs.

[Ludo*1]

2 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

You seem obsessed with St Johnstone to be honest. Look we just don't see you as a derby and you need to get over it.

Away and concern yourself with the team over the road and your wee kiddy rivalry. You guys are verging on half and half scarf territory, if I was you I'd be more concerned with that that a team up the river and what it's fans think of you and your clusterfuck of a club. 

This is quality tearful content.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, Chefki Kuqi said:

I had heard something about our value per game being quite high, or something similar. It's obviously an intriguing statistic, where is it from if you don't mind me asking? 

It is on wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_football_league_broadcast_deals_by_country

That might not be up to date but it at least gives an idea of where we are.

If you look at the EPL, they have fewer games sold that other leagues too because the current pay tv structure has nowhere of value to show these games. The viewing figures for the EPL aren't that high so the current model means it isn't worth it to show 2 games at the same time.

So a SPFL game can only be shown when it has enough value for Sky. And that is when Sky doesn't have an EPL game to show.

[Theyellowbox]

2 minutes ago, Chefki Kuqi said:

In truth I don't think things are awful the way they are, other than the fact that I think the Sky deal does little for our game and we'd perhaps be better off trying an in-house solution.

The number of teams in the league makes it competitive throughout so its fairly entertaining. However I believe two bigger leagues instead of four, ie 20 teams top, 22+ teams below, might be for the betterment of Scottish football.

I suggest this for two reasons:

1) It will allow teams who have made up the SPL or whom challenge in Championship to make it to the big leagues. In my view some of these clubs just need a chance to kick on to grow, and regular visits from teams with larger supports may be beneficial to them, in turn allowing them to invest in the team and potentially take larger home crowds. 

2) It will make the league less competitive, perhaps less meaningful games for mid-table sides. However I do feel if - to be arrogant about it - there are 'easier' games for established SPL clubs then that will provide a greater opportunity to play youth and develop talent. Currently because the league is competitive its a risk for a team like Hibs to put out anything but a best 11 every week. Perhaps good for the product on show, but fairly crap for the development of players if the only way they can develop is through the 1) League Cup 2) Loan system 3) Injury crisis.

It would lead to a smaller share of the overall pot, but potentially increase the amount of players developed in the league whom can either continue to play a part for the team or merit being sold on.

One if the arguments about getting rid of the bigger leagues at the time was the lack of competition, but arguably the 10/12 team set up is worse. Would make sense to have smaller leagues if the distribution and team sizes were even,but they are not.

If say a 20 team league, someone like Hibs and Aberdeen can get much closer to Rangers and Celtic by simply being better than the rest. Currently a team in 3rd could win every other game, but loose the 8 old firm games and be potentially 24 points off top. Cut that to just 4 games and it gets much much closer.

The other argument on dead games towards the end of the season may be true, but in the modern game either larger squads, it maybe allows he race for younger players to get a first team opportunity. 

[RossBFaeDundee]

8 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

This is quality tearful content.

God loves a trier.

[Leith Green]

4 minutes ago, Merkland Red said:

I mean, we're probably just happy enough to actually see what's proposed

Yep. And Tom English (I know....) has also said it's about shining a light on the SPFL and their machine. While last year with the relegation debacles was a bit of a giggle, it did also show the SPFL in full on diddy mode.

Any increase in professionalism, or -god forbid - "American style selling" of the league may be good things.

Like you, I am happy to wait a few months to see the outcome.

If they are still without a win, who knows maybe even Saintees will get on the "no relegation" Choo Choo train?

[Theyellowbox]

13 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

This is quality tearful content.

Glad I could help.

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

To add another factor into why our TV deal is so poor which we can all agree on. The Old Firm are holding us back for their own ends.

They are highly protective of their own home games. There have been clauses in the previous deal that meant BT was not allowed to show league games from Ibrox and Celtic Park. And Sky had a very limited number of games (4 each I think) that covered basically the OF games and perhaps a title decider.

IDK how often Sky used up their full allocation of 8 games at Ibrox and Celtic Park. That would be a very interesting thing to know. How many home OF games did they show on TV last season when we were behind closed doors?

Edited September 14, 2021 by Jim McLean's Ghost

[Chefki Kuqi]

3 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

It is on wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_domestic_football_league_broadcast_deals_by_country

That might not be up to date but it at least gives an idea of where we are.

If you look at the EPL, they have fewer games sold that other leagues too because the current pay tv structure has nowhere of value to show these games. The viewing figures for the EPL aren't that high so the current model means it isn't worth it to show 2 games at the same time.

So a SPFL game can only be shown when it has enough value for Sky. And that is when Sky doesn't have an EPL game to show.

Much obliged! 

 

From the looks of things the comparably sized countries whom have higher revenues are generally all Scandinavian, which leads me to think their increased revenues have something to do with the relative strength of their currency/wages? Not economically literate though so just vomiting it up for discussion.

I mean by comparison to Belgium and the Netherlands, whom have more than double and triple our populations respectively, we perform poorly relative to Belgium but then again so do - surprisingly - the Netherlands, whom earn only slightly more than double for their deal in a country with more than triple our population. 

I also worry about the relatively low number of live televised games that we have and that potentially being heavily influenced by the OF. Not to say that we can't improve the marketing of the game by showing more games, but I do feel there is scope for that value to drop down the more games we show.

[parsforlife]

Chances of this giving suggestions that will survive a vote must be very low.

The Kenny macaskill review was pathetic and I can’t see what’s going to come up in this one that would be different.

We’re going to see more of the current situation with a handful of clubs screaming ‘but the review said...’

[Theyellowbox]

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

To add another factor into why our TV deal is so poor which we can all agree on. The Old Firm are holding us back for their own ends.

They are highly protective of their own home games. There have been clauses in the previous deal that meant BT was not allowed to show league games from Ibrox and Celtic Park. And Sky had a very limited number of games (4 each I think) that covered basically the OF games and perhaps a title decider.

IDK how often Sky used up their full allocation of 8 games at Ibrox and Celtic Park. That would be a very interesting thing to know. How many home OF games did they show on TV last season when we were behind closed doors?

To be fair, while you are correct in that they are selfishly holding things back. The 4 home games rule covered all clubs. It was put in place to make sure it didn't end up just being ges from the same team week in week.out, but ended up bring that anyway by being OF away day TV.

If the pandemic has shown anything, it is that the ability to do an SPFL TV is viable. I'd be sceptical about the finances to be honest and would shrink the exposure in the rest of the UK, but there is no technical barrier to it. 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

Just now, Theyellowbox said:

To be fair, while you are correct in that they are selfishly holding things back. The 4 home games rule covered all clubs. It was put in place to make sure it didn't end up just being ges from the same team week in week.out, but ended up bring that anyway by being OF away day TV.

If the pandemic has shown anything, it is that the ability to do an SPFL TV is viable. I'd be sceptical about the finances to be honest and would shrink the exposure in the rest of the UK, but there is no technical barrier to it. 

The four TV games rule did not cover all clubs.

The last BT/Sky deal had 68 live games. If it was only 4 per clubs that would be impossible. The old firm retained their 4 game clause while everyone else had to host more TV games.

[Theyellowbox]

2 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

The four TV games rule did not cover all clubs.

The last BT/Sky deal had 68 live games. If it was only 4 per clubs that would be impossible. The old firm retained their 4 game clause while everyone else had to host more TV games.

That is true, but the original set up was 4 games per team.

[Theyellowbox]

19 minutes ago, RossBFaeDundee said:

God loves a trier.

Genuine question though, what would happen if the review suggested that the most profitable thing to do would be mergers of teams? You could see the American owners looking at you guys, amalgimations for Angus clubs, Falkirk clubs, etc.

Obviously would cause outrage, but I think it would be foolish to assume people with no historical ties to the clubs hadn't or wouldn't consider it as part of this wider review. 

For me (and this is not a dig) I would doubt a combined Dundee, Angus or Falkirk club would do any better than any of the strongest individual clubs. 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

10 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

That is true, but the original set up was 4 games per team.

Does it matter if Sky never use the games though?

Outside the OF games which other games at Ibrox and Celtic Park  were shown on Sky Sports last season?

[Ludo*1]

14 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

Genuine question though, what would happen if the review suggested that the most profitable thing to do would be mergers of teams? You could see the American owners looking at you guys, amalgimations for Angus clubs, Falkirk clubs, etc.

Obviously would cause outrage, but I think it would be foolish to assume people with no historical ties to the clubs hadn't or wouldn't consider it as part of this wider review. 

For me (and this is not a dig) I would doubt a combined Dundee, Angus or Falkirk club would do any better than any of the strongest individual clubs. 

[Jim McLean's Ghost]

11 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

Does it matter if Sky never use the games though?

Outside the OF games which other games at Ibrox and Celtic Park  were shown on Sky Sports last season?

I have found 1.

Sky Sports showed the Celtic raising the league flag against Accies on the opening weekend.

 

[AJF]

5 minutes ago, Jim McLean's Ghost said:

I have found 1.

Sky Sports showed the Celtic raising the league flag against Accies on the opening weekend.

 

They also showed us vs Aberdeen on the last day of the season.

[Theyellowbox]

9 minutes ago, Ludo*1 said:

You may laugh, but if you were to be starting from scratch, you would not have anything like the set up and location of clubs we currently have.

I'm not saying for a second these clubs should merge as it would be a loss, but certainly, do I think there could be some tie ins then pretty likely. I know it is old ground, but it makes zero sense having 2 stadiums on the same street and given the failed multiple attempts at Dundee moving in their own, some sort of shared facility isn't a stupid idea.

Scotland and England are pretty unique in footballing terms not to have shared stadiums and such a large volume of senior teams in such a condensed area.

Given 4 of the 5 teams involved in the review are essentially US owned or at least in part, it would be reasonable to have maybe what we would see as abnormal approaches to how the game and clubs could be structured. Let's be brutally honest, there is a great product there, but the conditions it is in, be it stadiums, tv deals, sponsorship, governance and leadership is more akin to some Balkin state than supposedly one of the richest nations in the world.